Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co.: Specific Performance Case Analysis
In the case of Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co., the issue of whether money damages are adequate or if specific performance is necessary arises due to the unique long-term propane supply contract involving residential developments. The court considers factors like the availability of alternatives, excessive costs, and public interest in determining the appropriate remedy.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Laclede, Specific Performance Richard Warner
Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co. Laclede and entered into a written agreement which was designed to provide central propane gas distribution systems to various residential developments . . . The agreement contemplated that as individual developments were planned the owners or developers would apply to Laclede for central propane gas systems. If Laclede determined that such a system was appropriate in any given development, it could request Amoco to supply the propane to that specific development.
Money Damages Adequate? Why is this relevant? The contract involved . . . is for a long-term supply of propane to these subdivisions. The other two contracts under which Laclede obtains the gas will remain in force only until March 31, 1977, and April 1, 1981, respectively; and there is no assurance that Laclede will be able to receive any propane under them after that time . . . Additionally, there was uncontradicted expert testimony that Laclede probably could not find another supplier of propane willing to enter into a long-term contract such as the Amoco agreement, given the uncertain future of worldwide energy supplies. And, even if Laclede could obtain supplies of propane for the affected developments through its present contracts or newly negotiated ones, it would still face considerable expense and trouble which cannot be estimated in advance in making arrangements for its distribution to the subdivisions. The contract is unique not easily replicated in the market.
Money damages inadequate? No Yes Excessive cost to defendant or courts? No specific performance Yes No Against public interest? No specific performance Yes No specific performance No specific performance
Money damages inadequate? No Yes Excessive cost to defendant or courts? No specific performance Yes No Against public interest? No specific performance Yes No specific performance No specific performance While a court may refuse to grant specific performance where such a decree would require constant and long-continued court supervision, this is merely a discretionary rule of decision which is frequently ignored when the public interest is involved. . . .
Money damages inadequate? No Yes Excessive cost to defendant or courts? No specific performance Yes No Against public interest? No specific performance Yes No specific performance No specific performance Here the public interest in providing propane to the retail customers is manifest, while any supervision required will be far from onerous.
