Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
NIPSCO v. Carbon County: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
* The jury awarded Carbon County $181,000,000 (181 million). | * The jury awarded Carbon County $181,000,000 (181 million). | ||
* | * | ||
|issues=# Does monetary loss resulting from economic risk-taking | |issues=#Does monetary loss resulting from economic risk-taking | ||
#* constitute a force majeure or | #*constitute a force majeure or | ||
#* satisfy the doctrines of | #*satisfy the doctrines of | ||
#*# frustration of purpose or | #*#frustration of purpose or | ||
#*# impossibility? | #*#impossibility? | ||
# Does the doctrine of illegality automatically void a contract? | #Does the doctrine of illegality automatically void a contract? | ||
|arguments=NIPSCO argued that the contract was un-enforceable because it violated the '''Mineral Lands Leasing Act''' of 1920. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/MineralLeasingAct1920.pdf | |||
|holding=# No. Monetary loss resulting from economic risk-taking doesn't constitute a ''force majeure'' or satisfy either the doctrines of frustration or impossibility. | |||
# No. The doctrine of illegality doesn't automatically void a contract. | |||
|reasons=[[Richard A. Posner]]: The Indiana commission's authorization of the fuel surcharge didn't constitute a ''force majeure'' excusing NIPSCO's performance. | |||
Posner: Also, this wasn't an inherently illegal contract. The Department of Interior & DOJ hadn't objected to Carbon County's mining. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/northern-indiana-public-service-co-v-carbon-county-coal-co | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/northern-indiana-public-service-co-v-carbon-county-coal-co |
Revision as of 18:27, December 13, 2023
NIPSCO v. Carbon County | |
Court | 7th Circuit |
---|---|
Citation | 799 F.2d 265 |
Date decided | August 13, 1986 |
Facts
- Northern Indiana Public Service Co. = "NIPSCO" = plaintiff = coal buyer = electric utility company
- Carbon County Coal Co. (Carbon County) = coal mine company = company with a Wyoming coal mine on federal land = coal seller
- In 1978, the 2 parties contracted for NIPSCO to receive 1,500,000 (1.5 million) tons of coal/year for 20 years.
- The 2 parties agreed on $24/ton of coal subject to change.
- The contract included a force majeure clause.
- Coal prices went up:
year 1978
$24/ton of coal
$44/ton of coal
year 1985
- NIPSCO found a cheaper source of electricity; so, NIPSCO suspended the coal shipments from Carbon County.
Procedural History
- NIPSCO sued Carbon County in federal court in Indiana seeking a declaratory judgment that NIPSCO was excused from buying coal from Carbon County under the force majeure clause.
- NIPSCO lost.
- The jury awarded Carbon County $181,000,000 (181 million).
Issues
- Does monetary loss resulting from economic risk-taking
- constitute a force majeure or
- satisfy the doctrines of
- frustration of purpose or
- impossibility?
- Does the doctrine of illegality automatically void a contract?
Arguments
NIPSCO argued that the contract was un-enforceable because it violated the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920. https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/MineralLeasingAct1920.pdf
Holding
- No. Monetary loss resulting from economic risk-taking doesn't constitute a force majeure or satisfy either the doctrines of frustration or impossibility.
- No. The doctrine of illegality doesn't automatically void a contract.
Reasons
Richard A. Posner: The Indiana commission's authorization of the fuel surcharge didn't constitute a force majeure excusing NIPSCO's performance.
Posner: Also, this wasn't an inherently illegal contract. The Department of Interior & DOJ hadn't objected to Carbon County's mining.