Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States, 530 U.S. 604, 3 (2000)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

606

MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCING SOUTHEAST, INC. v. UNITED STATES

Syllabus

the companies' enjoyment of their rights to explore and develop oil. Timely and fair consideration of a submitted Plan was a material condition of the contracts, yet the Government announced an OBPA-required delay of 13 months minimum, and the delay turned out to be at least four years. This modification of the procedures was not technical or insubstantial, and it amounted to a repudiation of the contracts. Pp. 620-621.

(c) Although acceptance of a once-repudiated contract can constitute a waiver of the restitution right that repudiation would otherwise create, none of the events that the Government points to—that the companies submitted the Plan to Interior two days after OBPA became law, that the companies subsequently asked the Commerce Secretary to override North Carolina's objection to the CZMA certification, and that the companies received suspensions of their leases pending OBPA-mandated approval delays—amounts to significant postrepudiation performance. Pp. 621-623.

(d) Finally, the Government's argument that OBPA caused the companies no injury because they could not have met the CZMA consistency requirements misses the point: The companies seek not damages for breach of contract but restitution of their initial payments. Because the Government repudiated the contracts, the law entitles the companies to that restitution whether the contracts would, or would not, ultimately have produced a financial gain or led them to obtain a definite right to explore. Pp. 623-624.

177 F. 3d 1331, reversed and remanded.

Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 624.

Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioners in both cases. With him on the briefs for petitioner Marathon Oil Co. were Richard D. Bernstein, Griffith L. Green, Michael S. Lee, and Richard L. Horstman. E. Edward Bruce and Steven J. Rosenbaum filed briefs for petitioner Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc.

Kent L. Jones argued the cause for the United States in both cases. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Waxman, Acting Assistant Attorney General Ogden, Dep-

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007