For Your Data Dews V. Halliburton Industries Illustration Brief Summary

Dews v. Halliburton Industries illustration brief summary
288 Ark. 532, 708 S. W. sec 67 (1986)

Procedural Posture: 

Defendant Lyle Dews was constitute to move responsible for debt acquired past times Halliburton Industries Inc. inwards the drilling of an stone oil good that amounts to to a greater extent than or less $519,397.40. Due to Massey non appearing inwards court, the Trial courtroom constitute that Massey as well as Dews were jointly liable for the companies claims. 

Overview: 

Defendant, Lyle Dews had an executed a farmount understanding for leases from Crystal Oil Co.

Terms of the lease required that Dews, at his expense, drill a exam good past times May 15, 2982 as well as maintain drilling to a depth sufficient to exam the Cotton Valley Formation.

Crystal reserved an overriding royalty interest. However, if production was obtained, as well as so Dews would move assigned an involvement inwards the leasehold estate.

Dews paid no consideration for this farmount.

Dews as well as so entered into an understanding alongside Bruce Massey whereby Massey would pay the Dews $50,000 inwards telephone commutation for Dews assigning Massey his correct to the leasehold estate nether the Crystal-Dew agreement. Dews reserved a 5% of the leasehold estate every bit an overriding royalty interest. In provide Dew agreed to accept the good move drilled.

Drilling was completed earlier deadline as well as Crystal signed over leases. However, Massey contracted the operate to move done, exactly since he had non fulfilled his contractual obligation of $50, 000, Dews didn’t plough over the leases every bit he had agreed alongside Massey.

Companies responsible for drilling filed conform against Massey inwards endeavor to collect coin as well as and so Dews was brought inwards every bit a political party accused as well as Dews as well as so cross claimed against all the companies.

Issue: 

Whether accused was liable for expenses created past times a contract alongside a 3rd party.

Rule: 

Plaintiff tin move held liable nether a quasi contract theory. 

Reasoning: 

Dews was aware that Massey was inwards breach of their contract, exactly allowed the worked to maintain inwards hopes that his contractual obligation would move fulfilled. It was demonstrated that Dews was aware that the companies were performing a valuable service to the well. Massey authorization to contract the operate came from the same contract that he breached, therefore, Dews was entitled to non stand upwards past times as well as scout the companies perform labor.

Result: Supreme Court affirmed.

Share this post