Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs...

Hess Corporation v. Eni Petroleum U.S., LLC, et al.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division
435 N.J. Super 39 (2014)


Eni Petroleum (defendant) was a natural-gas producer. Eni reached an agreement with Hess Corporation (plaintiff) to sell gas to Hess. The agreement did not specify a particular source of the gas Eni would sell, or who would transport it. Shortly after the parties reached the agreement, a leak was discovered in the pipeline that Eni used to transport its gas. As a result, the operator of the pipeline stopped all transportation through the pipeline. Because of the leak, Eni could not get any of its gas to the specified delivery point until the operator repaired the pipe. Upon learning of the leak, Eni notified Hess that it was declaring force majeure under the agreement and would not be delivering gas to Hess. The force majeure terms of the agreement stated that neither party would be liable for failure to perform by any cause not reasonably within the control of the parties, including interruption of transportation. Hess rejected Eni’s declaration of force majeure, pointing out that the delivery point was fed by a number of different sources. Therefore, according to Hess, the leak in the pipeline did not affect the availability of natural gas at the delivery point. Hess also noted that the agreement did not identify the operator or that pipeline as the specific transporter. Hess was forced to purchase gas from another buyer at a significantly marked-up cost. Hess filed a breach of contract action against Eni. The trial judge found Eni liable for Hess’s damages. The judge held that the absence of a listed transporter was critical to his decision. Because nothing in the agreement stated that Eni would be able to provide gas through only a specific transporter using a specific route, the leak did not constitute a force majeure event. Eni appealed, arguing that the judge erred in rejecting its force majeure defense.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Hass, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 409,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,500 briefs, keyed to 223 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial