TEC Olmos, LLC v. ConocoPhillips Co.

555 S.W.3d 176 | Court of Appeals of Texas | 2018

enforcedCited 17 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

A force majeure clause's catch-all provision requires showing unforeseeability, and foreseeable market downturns in commodities do not qualify as force majeure events.

Fluctuations in the oil and gas market are foreseeable as a matter of law.

Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018

Related Cases

United States v. Winstar Corp.

1996enforced

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.

Luis E. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, m.d.'s, P.A., Defendant-Third Party St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party

1997remanded

Whether a defendant qualifies as an 'employer' under ADEA is a substantive element of the plaintiff's claim, not merely a jurisdictional question, and must be decided by a jury rather than dismissed by the judge under Rule 12(b)(1).

Intergen N v. v. Grina

2003enforced

A party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes unless it has agreed to do so; InterGen, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreements, is not bound by arbitration clauses in contracts signed by other parties.

Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.

2002voided

Local Government Code § 89.004's presentment requirement is a condition precedent to suit, not a waiver of sovereign immunity, and a county does not waive immunity by withholding contract payments under liquidated damages clauses.

Lenape Resources Corp. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.

1996enforced

Section 2.306 of the UCC does not apply to take-or-pay gas contracts where parties have specified quantity as a determinable amount (85% of delivery capacity), and good faith obligations remain applicable to increases in delivery capacity.

Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc.

2009enforced

The economic loss rule bars post-contractual fraud claims when the alleged fraud arises from duties implicated by a party's performance of contractual terms, even where the fraud is intentional.