06.09.2021 Views

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

its own refinery in order to avoid delivering ethylene to PPG. Indeed, it would not<br />

make commercial sense <strong>for</strong> Shell to intentionally bring about any of the contingencies<br />

enumerated in Section 8 of the contract.<br />

As noted previously, PPG contends that the term “reasonably beyond its<br />

control” modifies the enumerated events which follow “or” in Section 8 of the contract.<br />

This interpretation is not in keeping with the plain grammatical meaning of the<br />

disjunctive. However, there are cases in this circuit which apply a conjunctive<br />

meaning to such a clause. Although, [in these cases,] it is important to note, the<br />

“reasonably beyond its control” language follows and clearly modifies by reference the<br />

enumerated contingencies. In Jon-T Chemicals, Inc. v. Freeport Chemical Co., 704<br />

F.2d 1412, 1414 (5th Cir. 1983), the excuse clause read in pertinent part:<br />

Seller shall not be liable <strong>for</strong> any failure or delay in per<strong>for</strong>mance hereunder which<br />

may be due, in whole or in part, to fire, explosion, earthquake, storm, flood, drought<br />

. . . or any contingency or delay or failure or cause of any nature beyond the<br />

reasonable control of Seller, whether or not of the kind hereinabove specified. . . .<br />

In Nissho-Iwai Co., Ltd. v. Occidental Crude Sales, 729 F.2d 1530 (5th Cir. 1984), the<br />

“<strong>for</strong>ce majeure” clause excused nonper<strong>for</strong>mance caused by:<br />

executive or administrative orders or acts [of the Libyan Government], . . . or by<br />

breakdown or injury to . . . producing . . . or delivering facilities, . . . or by any other<br />

event, whether or not similar to the causes specified above . . . , which shall not<br />

reasonably be within the control of the party against whom the claim would<br />

otherwise be made . . . .<br />

In these two cases, the reasonable control language and the enumerated events<br />

are plainly and grammatically tied together. However, in Section 8 of the Shell-PPG<br />

contract these same two portions are not tied together conjunctively, and should not<br />

now be read that way. The language is clear and unambiguous. There is no genuine<br />

issue of material fact regarding the wording of the contract, particularly Section 8 of<br />

the contract. There<strong>for</strong>e, Shell is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.<br />

_____________________<br />

Review Question 4. The PPG Industries court puts a great deal of emphasis<br />

on grammar. Note the clause at issue in this case and compare it to the two clauses<br />

quoted from the earlier Jon-T Chemicals and Nissho-Iwai decisions. Can you<br />

describe exactly why the court found the differences in the particular language to be<br />

compelling?<br />

Review Question 5. What is a <strong>for</strong>ce majeure clause and what does it do? That,<br />

incidentally, is the sort of thing lawyers in all types of practice are expected to<br />

understand as part of their general knowledge.<br />

_____________________<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

UNIT 18: THE INTERPRETIVE TOOLBOX 367

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!