Gillette v. Pepper Tank Co.
Colorado Court of Appeals
694 P.2d 369, 83 O. & G.R. 271 (1984)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Charles Underwood (plaintiff) was the lessor of oil and gas rights to Pepper Tank Company (Pepper) (defendant). Pepper drilled several producing wells in 1952 and 1953, one producing well in 1957, and one producing well in 1972. Each of these wells was subsequently abandoned, with the exception of one well that continued to operate with minimal production. Underwood brought suit for breach of the implied covenant of further development and exploration and for breach of the implied covenant to operate prudently, and sought cancellation of the lease. The trial court found that Pepper had breached the implied covenants. As a remedy, the trial court ordered conditional cancellation of the lease. Specifically, the trial court ordered that Pepper could avoid cancellation for the nonproducing areas of the leasehold if Pepper filed a plan of development within 60 days. If Pepper failed to file, Underwood could cancel the lease by filing a development plan. Additionally, the trial court held that Pepper could avoid cancellation for the producing area if Pepper made necessary repairs to the lone producing well that remained. Both parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pierce, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
