PBS Coals, Inc. v. Burnham Coal Co.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
558 A.2d 562 (1989)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
The Burnham Coal Company (Burnham) (defendant) drafted an agreement that gave its interest in mining properties to PBS Coals, Inc. (PBS) (plaintiff). One of the properties required certain reclamation work, which the parties acknowledged and reflected by reducing the price of a piece of equipment that was part of the same transaction. The agreement also provided that PBS would acquire any other obligations Burnham owed to property owners and would acquire the properties as is. Although PBS had inspections of the properties done, it did not realize that one property would require water-drainage repair. PBS began attempting to make the repairs, knowing that if it failed to do so, its other mining permits could be placed at risk. But PBS also later withheld money it owed to Burnham under the agreement. Eventually, the state advised Burnham that Burnham could be fined for the drainage issue, to which Burnham responded by contacting PBS. Burnham claimed that the agreement placed the obligations on PBS. PBS then brought a declaratory-judgment action, claiming it was not responsible for the drainage issue; Burnham counterclaimed. The trial court sided with PBS after concluding that the agreement was ambiguous and finding, based on extrinsic evidence, that the contract was limited to reclamation work (i.e., not the drainage work). Burnham appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Del Sole, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
