Russell v. Texaco

• "Russell" = property buyer without minerals rights
• The Texas Company = "Texaco" = owner of the mineral rights on Russell's land; so, Texaco had an easement on Russell's property to access minerals underground
• Starting September 1952, Texaco exceeded the scope of its easement because it operated on adjacent lands
• At the end of October 1952, Russell offered Texaco a revocable license for $150/day for unrestrained exploration on Russell's property + adjacent lands
• Russell's offer stated that Texaco's continued use of Russell's property equated with acceptance of the offer
• Texaco continued to use Russell's property without expressly accepting or rejecting the offer
  • In late November 1952, Texaco finished using Russell's land
  • In December 1952, Texaco announced that Russell's offer was rejected

• Russel sued Texaco
• Russell equated continued use of his land with Texaco's acceptance
• Russell asked for $3,600.
• Texaco lost because the court agreed with Russell.

Does an offeree's exercise of dominion over offered property constitute acceptance absent circumstances demonstrating a contrary intention?

Texaco = the offeree

Yes. Absent circumstances demonstrating a contrary intention, if an offeree exercises dominion over offered property, then that exercise of dominion constitutes acceptance.

Affirmed

Judge Halbert: Texaco continued use of Russell's property beyond the scope of the easement was tortious.