Reeves v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.
Alaska Supreme Court
926 P.2d 1130 (1996)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
In January 1991, John Reeves (plaintiff), the owner of a popular local tourist attraction, met with Keith Burke, the local manager for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (Alyeska) (defendant). At Burke’s request, Reeves sketched out his idea for a local visitor center catering to tourists visiting the nearby Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Reeves proposed locating the center on Alyeska’s land. In return for a 20-year lease of that land, Reeves proposed giving Alyeska a percentage of the center’s admission-fee and gift-shop revenue. Burke was unaware that Alyeska had received and rejected a similar proposal in 1987. Burke agreed to keep Reeves’s proposal confidential, told Reeves that the two men had a deal, and promised to draw up the necessary contracts so that the center could open in time for the 1991 tourist season. Over the next several months, Burke encouraged Reeves’s expectations for a deal. However, in August 1991, Alyeska opened its own visitor center, which proved to be highly successful. Reeves sued Alyeska on several counts that included express-contract, implied-contract, and quasi-contract claims. The trial court found that Reeves failed to establish the novelty or originality of his visitor-center idea and entered summary judgment for Alyeska. Reeves appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.