Henry v. Ballard & Cordell Corp.
Louisiana Supreme Court
418 So.2d 1334, 74 O. & G.R. 280 (1982)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
W. F. Henry (plaintiff) was the lessor in a series of oil and gas leases, under which Ballard & Cordell Corporation (Ballard) (defendant) was the lessee. The leases provided that Henry would be entitled to a royalty calculated as a percentage of the market value of any gas sold from the leaseholds. In 1961, Ballard signed a 20-year gas-sales contract with American Louisiana Pipeline Company (ALPC). The sales contract contained a price-escalation clause, allowing the sales price to increase over the course of the contract, and was negotiated at arm’s length and in good faith. ALPC was the only purchaser available to Ballard at this time. Ballard paid Henry royalties calculated based on the price of gas sold under the sales contract. In 1976, the price under the sales contract fell below the market value for gas on the open market. In 1978, Henry brought suit for unpaid royalties, arguing that “market value” as contained in the lease referred to the current market value on the open market, and should be determined each day gas was produced. Ballard presented evidence that 20-year sales contracts were industry custom and that the long-term sales contract had been insisted upon by ALPC. The trial court agreed with Henry’s interpretation. The court of appeal reversed. Henry appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blanche, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.