Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co.

NAME:	Laclede Gas Co. (π) v. Amoco Oil Co. (Δ),522 F.2d 33 (1975) [C.J. Ross]
P/S:	π brought a diversity action alleging breach of K against Δ seeking relief in the form of a mandatory injunction prohibiting the continuing breach or damages. The district court held that the K was invalid due to lack of mutuality and denied the injunctive relief. π appeals.
F:	π and Δ entered into a written agreement which was to provide central gas distribution systems to various residential developments in Missouri, until such time as natural gas mains were extended into these areas (10-15 years), at such time π should give Δ 30 days written notice of this event. If π determined that such a system (propane) was appropriate in any given development, it could request Δ to provide the propane to that specific development. Δ would provide the propane for “the Wood River Area Posted Price.” A paragraph of the agreement gave π the right to cancel at any time. There was no provision providing Δ with the ability to cancel the agreement.
I:	Should the court grant the injunction (specific performance) requested by the π?
H:	YES, specific performance is the proper remedy in this situation. Reversed and remanded.
Rule:	1. Specific enforcement will not be decreed unless the terms of the K are so expressed that the court can determine w/ reasonable certainty what is the duty of each party and the conditions under which performance is due, -Rest. 2d §370. 2. Specific performance will not be ordered when the party claiming breach of K has an adequate remedy at law [such as an award of damages], -Jamison Coal & Coke Co. v. Goltra. 3. A remedy at law adequate to defeat the grant of specific performance “must be as certain, prompt, complete, and efficient to attain the ends of justice as a decree of specific performance,” –Nat’l Marking Mach. Co. v. Triumph Mfg. Co.
R:	1. There is simply no requirement in the law that both parties be mutually entitled to the remedy of specific performance in order that one of them be given that remedy by the court… 2. While a court may refuse to grant specific performance where such a decree would require constant and long-continued court supervision, this is merely a discretionary rule of decision which is frequently ignored when the public interest is involved…Here the public interest in providing propane to the retail customer is manifest… 3. The fact that the agreement does not have a definite time duration is not fatal since the evidence established that the last subdivision should be converted to natural gas in 10-15 years. This sets a reasonable time limit on performance… 4. In Boeving v. Vandover, specific performance was a proper remedy since a new car “could not be obtained elsewhere except at considerable expense, trouble or loss, which cannot be estimated in advance.” Likewise, uncontradicted expert testimony asserted that π probably could not find another supplier of propane willing to enter into a long-term K such as the Δ agreement, given the uncertain future of worldwide energy supplies.