rejecting 15 plaintiff’s failure of cause claim as a non-cognizable failure of motive claim and noting that 16 “[c]ause―or end―is distinguishable from the motive that prompts the debtor to bind himself” 17 and although “motive bears a decisive influence upon the party’s will . . . an error of motive does 18 not nullify the obligation”
How later courts described this case
- rejecting 15 plaintiff’s failure of cause claim as a non-cognizable failure of motive claim and noting that 16 “[c]ause―or end―is distinguishable from the motive that prompts the debtor to bind himself” 17 and although “motive bears a decisive influence upon the party’s will . . . an error of motive does 18 not nullify the obligation”
- rejecting plaintiffs failure of cause claim as a non-cognizable failure of motive claim and noting that “[cjause or end is distinguishable from the motive that prompts the debtor to bind himself’ and although “motive bears a decisive influence upon the party’s will ... an error of motive does not nullify the obligation”
- holding that the fact that the “market has simply not evolved in the manner anticipated” is not error in the principal cause of the contract
- “The Court rejects this argument [relating to commercial impracticability] on the grounds that no court in Louisiana has unequivocally embraced this common law doctrine.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON REHEARING
Defendant Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Pipe Line) has moved for a new trial, or alternatively to alter or amend the Judgment and Order of this Court of February 13, 1985.
The contracts in question provide that in order for force majeure to relieve a party of its obligations, the party is required to (1) give notice, and (2) the full particulars of the force majeure event(s) in writing to the other party. While some of the letters Pipe Line relies upon (plaintiff’s exhibits 10B1 through 10B10 from the preliminary injunction hearing, as well as the attachment to Pipe Line’s motion) did discuss, in varying detail, two of the force majeure conditions Pipe Line alleges (e.g., the mild winter of 1982-1983 and the drop in the relative price of competing fuels), none gave notice that Pipe Line considered itself *110 relieved of its obligations due to the occurrence of force majeure conditions.
Pipe Line also asserts that it is uncertain what “increased quantities of gas” it will have to take from the two fields “to prevent waste or loss of reserves,” to comply with this Court’s order. Pipe Line is simply reminded that it is bound to perform its obligations in good faith, and that entails protecting Superior from such losses.
Accordingly, Pipe Line's motion is denied.