Northern Helex Company v. United States

Decision Date22 October 1975
Docket NumberNo. 454-70.,454-70.
Citation524 F.2d 707
PartiesNORTHERN HELEX COMPANY v. The UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Claims Court

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Clarence T. Kipps, Jr., Washington, D. C., attorney of record for plaintiff; F. V. Roach, Omaha, Neb., Ralph P. Blodgett, Jim W. Krueger, Dean W. Wallace, Edward J. Vandermark, Omaha, Neb., John Lloyd Rice and Miller & Chevalier, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

Edward J. Friedlander, Washington, D. C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen. Rex E. Lee, for defendant. James F. Merow, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

Before COWEN, Chief Judge, DURFEE, Senior Judge, SKELTON, NICHOLS and KUNZIG, Judges.

OPINION

SKELTON, Judge.

In this case Northern Helex Company (plaintiff or Northern Helex) seeks in its second amended petition to recover $99,964,000 from the Government as damages for a breach of contract to purchase helium. The plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern). The liability issue in the case was decided in favor of the plaintiff by this court in Northern Helex Co. v. United States, 455 F.2d 546, 197 Ct.Cl. 118 (1972). In that decision we held that the failure of the Government to pay for helium delivered to it by the plaintiff as required by the contract was a material breach that justified the plaintiff in terminating the contract and for which the plaintiff has a claim for damages. We held further that the plaintiff had not waived the breach of the Government by its continued production and tender of helium to the Government both before and after suit was filed. However, we did not pass upon plaintiff's claim for damages nor upon other issues in the case that will be discussed below. We granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and remanded the case to the trial judge to determine the amount of recovery, if any. A trial was held on this issue, which resulted in findings of fact and a recommended decision by the trial judge in favor of the plaintiff for the recovery of $78,012,142 as damages from the Government.1 Both the plaintiff and the defendant excepted to the trial judge's report. The facts necessary for our decision are included in this opinion. Our task is to decide the issues left undecided in our prior opinion cited above. Most of the basic facts are set forth in that opinion, and, for the sake of clarity and continuity, are repeated below with certain omissions and additions.

The plaintiff, a wholly owned subsidiary of Northern Natural Gas Company, made a contract with the United States, acting through the Department of Interior, on August 15, 1961. This agreement was authorized by the Helium Act Amendments of 1960 (50 U.S.C. § 167 et seq.), a long-range program designed to conserve helium as a natural resource for future use. A by-product of the production of natural gas, helium was wasted daily as it escaped into the atmosphere at such a rate that the helium-bearing gas resources in the southwestern states were expected to be inadequate for national needs by 1980-1985. Because of the unique properties of helium and the slim likelihood of finding new sources as rich as the Hugoton Area, involved here, the helium conservation program was initiated. One of its components was plaintiff's contract.

This provided for the purchase by the United States of the helium to be produced by Northern Helex which was estimated to be 13.5 billion cubic feet over a span of years. The helium was to be extracted from Hugoton gas, delivered, and paid for each month over the 22-year contract period with an annual fiscal year limitation of $9.5 million. The unit price of $11.24 per thousand cubic feet had increased to $12.41 by the date this action was filed (in December 1970) due to automatic price adjustments envisaged by the agreement. The Government also entered into similar contracts with Cities Service Helex, National Helium Corporation, and Phillips Petroleum Company. Pursuant to its contract, Northern Helex constructed facilities, extracted, and delivered helium from December 7, 1962, onward.

The helium conservation program was intended to be self-liquidating, financed with borrowing authority provided by Congress and with funds lent by the Treasury Department to Interior. The borrowed funds were to be supplemented and, within 25 to 35 years, repaid with interest from helium sales proceeds. Interior was to sell some of the helium at a price high enough to pay for the entire program and still have 40-50 billion cubic feet in storage for use after 1983. The "federal market"—consisting of Government agencies, their prime contractors and subcontractors—was expected to purchase its major helium requirements from Interior and provide the basic financing for the whole program.

Unfortunately this forecast did not prove itself. The difficulty was that, from the mid-1960's, private helium plants began to operate outside the program and to sell to Government contractors. Also, other conservation contractors produced helium in excess of the amount which could be sold to Interior under their contracts and sold the excess in competition with Interior at lower prices. Northern Helex sold helium only to Interior, but over the period of 1965-1969, some $25 million (it is said) was lost to the program because helium was purchased for federal use from other private producers rather than the Bureau of Mines. Congress did not appropriate enough funds to satisfy the payments due under the agreements of Northern Helex and its companions in the program. By letter dated November 26, 1968, Interior informed plaintiff that the Government would be unable to make payments when they became due as of January 1969. Beginning in December 1968, and continuing through 1969 the Government failed to pay the complete amount owed. Arrearages in the monthly payments ranged from a low of $664,122 to a high of $3,235,349. For deliveries from November 1969 through November 1970, the Government paid nothing at all.

In May 1970, the Interior Department convened a meeting of the four conservation contractors in which they were told that the unit price and the maximum annual payment would have to be negotiated downward. A letter of June 24, 1970 (acknowledged June 26), from Northern Helex notified the Government that its failure to make payments was a material breach which was not being waived, but that Northern Helex was willing to discuss modifications. A draft agreement which would have increased the obligations of plaintiff while the payments to it were decreased was circulated along the lines discussed in the negotiations. Meanwhile, in his request for supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 1971, the President asked only $56,100,000 in borrowing authority for obligations under the helium contracts. This amount was not sufficient to pay outstanding debts and all anticipated deliveries for the remainder of the fiscal year but only to cover five months of operation at the present contract price and seven months at the reduced price proposed by Interior. No real progress was made during the negotiations, as Northern Helex delivered 657,008,000 cubic feet of helium from November 1, 1969, through November 30, 1970, plus an additional 44,647,000 through December 24, 1970, the date of filing of the petition in this court, without receiving any payment.

In its petition, plaintiff alleged that although its contractual obligation to perform had been discharged by the Government's material breaches of contract, it would continue to tender helium to the Government in mitigation of damages and in the interest of conservation. This was done, according to Northern Helex, because helium extraction facilities have been interrelated with its liquefied petroleum gas and petrochemical operations in such a way that the helium facilities must be continued in operation whether helium is wasted or stored. Northern Helex has no facilities for storage, purification, distribution, or marketing of helium and there is so little demand for the gas in the private market that the company has not considered it financially feasible to develop such facilities. On December 30, 1970, Northern Helex notified Interior of this suit and of its decision to continue to deliver helium, despite the material breach, because of the integration of its facilities and the need to save helium.

On January 14, 1971, the United States sent Northern Helex a check for $8,671,631.99—the total amount then due for all helium delivered by plaintiff— which the company cashed, without any notation on the check, and it then amended its petition to reflect payment as a reduction of damages. On January 26, 1971, the Undersecretary of Interior wrote plaintiff terminating the contract under its termination clause, effective March 28, 1971. Plaintiff does not acknowledge the legitimacy of this asserted termination. Since then, a "no prejudice agreement" has been entered into under which Interior agrees to store helium which Northern Helex has continued to deliver. Payment also continued. Northern Helex billed Interior for helium delivered through March 31, 1971. The bills carry a legend indicating that delivery, submission of documents, and payment shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. After the recent Congressional appropriation of funds, on June 23, 1971, Northern Helex received a check of $2,285,872.87 for the period of December 1970 through March 28, 1971. This June payment is also considered by Northern Helex to be a reduction of damages without prejudice to its rights.

The parties stipulated that had the contract remained in effect from December 24, 1970, through August 15, 1983, the plaintiff would have delivered 6,467,000,000 cubic feet of helium to the Government. The trial judge found that at the contract price of $12.41 per m. c. f. in effect when the contract was terminated on December 24, 1970, the Government would have paid the plaintiff the sum of $80,255,000 for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Hercules Inc. v. U.S., s. 92-5124
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
    • May 4, 1994
    ...of damages sought, the Claims Court, citing Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Ex. 341, 156 Eng.Rep. 145 (1854), and Northern Helex Co. v. United States, 524 F.2d 707, 721, 207 Ct.Cl. 862 (1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 866, 97 S.Ct. 176, 50 L.Ed.2d 146 (1976), stated that "it is axiomatic that ... dama......
  • Cities Service Helex, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • October 20, 1976
    ...that contractor's claim of material breach, in Northern Helex Co. v. United States, 455 F.2d 546, 197 Ct.Cl. 118 (1972), and 524 F.2d 707, 207 Ct.Cl. 862 (1975), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 97 S.Ct. 176, 50 L.Ed.2d 146 (1976).1 Two of the other three contractors are now before us challengin......
  • United States ex rel. Grynberg Prod. Corp. v. Kinder Morgan Co2 Co., L.P.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • September 30, 2020
    ...39 L.Ed.2d 209 (1974) (Supreme Court citing the Helium Act Amendments, 50 U.S.C. § 167 et seq. as "the Helium Act"); N. Helex Co. v. U.S. , 524 F.2d 707 (Ct. Cl. 1975) (same internal citation); Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n , 359 F.2d 675, 676 (8th Cir. 1966) (same interna......
  • Eden Isle Marina, Inc. v. United States, 07-127 C
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • October 29, 2013
    ...which the suit is brought." Needles ex rel. Needles v. United States, 101 Ct. Cl. 535, 618 (1944); see also N. Helex Co. v. United States, 524 F.2d 707, 720 (Ct. Cl. 1975) ("[R]emote and consequential damages are not recoverable in a common-law suit for breach of contract . . . especially .......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT