Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc.
Texas Supreme Court
207 S.W.3d 342 (2006)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. (plaintiff) was one of many lessees of two offshore oil and gas rigs. The other lessees had all agreed that Seagull would operate the rigs, Seagull would share the profits with the other lessees, and the other lessees would pay Seagull for a portion of the operating expenses. Eland Energy, Inc. (defendant) bought an interest in two leases from other lessees and expressly assumed these obligations. The leases included provisions that allowed Eland to assign its interests to a third party, but the lease contracts were silent about whether an assignment would release Eland from liability for its obligations. Eland then sold its interests to Nor-Tex Gas Corporation, assigning its rights and obligations under the leases to Nor-Tex. Nor-Tex did not pay Seagull for its portion of the operating expenses. Seagull asked Eland to pay them, but Eland claimed that its assignment of the lease interests to Nor-Tex meant that Eland no longer had any contractual obligation to pay Seagull. Seagull sued both Eland and Nor-Tex. The trial court found that Eland must pay Seagull. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding that Eland was not obligated to pay Seagull. Seagull appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Medina, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.