Alaskan Crude Corp. v. State, Department of Natural Resources
261 P.3d 412 | Alaska Supreme Court | 2011
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Alaskan Crude Corporation missed work deadlines on an oil and gas unit and claimed a pending court appeal qualified as force majeure to excuse the delay. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that force majeure does not apply when the operator already knew about the legal decision before agreeing to the deadlines. The court affirmed that companies cannot use foreseeable legal challenges as an excuse to miss contractual obligations.
Key Takeaways
- •Force majeure only protects you from truly unforeseeable events—not legal disputes or appeals you already knew about when you signed the contract
- •If you're aware of a pending decision or legal challenge before accepting a deadline, you cannot later claim it as force majeure to excuse non-performance
- •Document what you knew and when you knew it; courts will examine whether an event was actually unforeseeable at the time you agreed to the terms
AOGCC's decision was thus incapable of being an unforeseeable force majeure.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I use a pending court appeal as force majeure to excuse missing a contract deadline?
No, not if you already knew about the appeal when you agreed to the deadline. Force majeure only covers unforeseeable events beyond your control. If a legal challenge was pending or foreseeable when you signed, you cannot later claim it excuses your performance.
Related Cases
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
United States v. Winstar Corp.
The Government's contractual promises regarding supervisory goodwill accounting treatment are enforceable despite subsequent regulatory changes, and the Government is liable for breach when Congress eliminated those accounting benefits.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.
Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp.
Summary judgment for defendants was properly granted because Flameout failed to satisfy the statute of frauds for an alleged three-year contract, as the three documents cited did not constitute a signed, enforceable written agreement for the sale of goods.