181 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1950), 12656, Southern Coast Corp. v. Sinclair Refining Co.
| Docket Nº: | 12656. |
| Citation: | 181 F.2d 960 |
| Party Name: | SOUTHERN COAST CORPORATION v. SINCLAIR REFINING CO. |
| Case Date: | May 17, 1950 |
| Court: | United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |
Page 960
Rehearing Denied June 19, 1950.
J. Hart Willis, Dallas, Tex., William A. Rembert, Jr., Dallas, Tex., W. M. Lewright, Corpus Christi, Tex., for appellant.
Carlisle Cravens, Fort Worth Tex., Allen V. Davis, Corpus Christi, Tex., Warren Scarborough, fort Worth, Tex., Nat. J. Harben, Fort Worth, Tex., Sloan Blair, Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.
Before HOLMES, McCORD, and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.
HOLMES, Circuit Judge.
Originally, this was a suit for the reformation and specific performance of a written contract to purchase gas; now, after the winnowing process of a trial in the court below, it is simply an action for damages for the alleged breach of such contract. There are only two points that we need to notice on this appeal: one is the refusal of the court below to admit parol evidence to explain an alleged ambiguity in the contract as to whether appellant had a right to meet every bid received by appellee, or only those of reputable, responsible, and then existing, gas pipe line distributing
Page 961
companies; the other is the denial by the court of the appellant's application to amend its complaint at the conclusion of the evidence so as to raise the issue of whether appellee is a gas pipe line distributing company.
Said contract gave the appellee an option to purchase gas from appellant for the years 1946-1951, inclusive at the rate of 5 1/2 cents per one thousand cubic feet, provided said option was exercised in writing on or before ninety days from the date thereof; but it was further agreed that the appellant should have 'the preferred and preferential right, ' in the event the appellee did not exercise such option, to meet any price for gas quoted to appellee by a reputable, responsible, and then existing, gas pipe line distributing company. The contract also provided that, before purchasing gas from any such competitor, appellee should first obtain a refusal in writing from appellant, declining to meet such competitive price as offered.
Appellant contended in the court below that the contract was ambiguous in that it could not be ascertained with certainty which of two possible alternatives the parties intended when they gave appellant the preferred and preferential right to meet any price for gas...
To continue reading
FREE SIGN UP