Resources Investment Corp. v. Enron Corp.
0United States District Court for the District of Colorado
669 F.Supp. 1038 (1986)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Enron Corporation (Enron) (defendant) agreed in various contracts to buy a certain amount of gas each year from Resources Investment Corporation (Resources) (plaintiff) over a period of 18 years. The contracts provided that Enron would pay for the entire specified amount of gas each year, regardless of whether Enron accepted delivery of the whole quantity. If Enron did not accept the entire amount of gas in a year, the unused amount would be rolled over and available to Enron in the following years. Enron eventually breached the contracts. Resources brought suit against Enron, seeking damages and a declaration that Enron must continue to perform all obligations related to the gas-purchase agreements. Enron asserted various counterclaims and affirmative defenses, arguing that its breach was excused by numerous conditions occurring subsequent to the execution of the contracts. Specifically, Enron contended that foreign competition, unusually warm winter weather, economic recession, unforeseeable changes in the gas market, and passage of related federal and state regulations had frustrated the purposes of the contracts and made Enron’s performance impossible or commercially impracticable. Resources moved to dismiss all of Enron’s counterclaims and most of Enron’s affirmative defenses.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kane, 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.