| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United Distribution Companies et al., 1990, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over natural gas contracts between Mobil and four local distribution companies (LDCs). The LDCs argued that they were entitled to refunds from "take-or-pay" payments made by pipeline companies to Mobil under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulations. These payments were required when pipelines did not purchase their contracted quantity of gas from producers like Mobil. However, FERC later determined these charges as unjust and ordered pipelines could recover them from producers. Mobil contested this claim arguing that its private contracts with the LDCs should be honored above FERC's orders because they contained clauses stating any changes in federal regulation would not result in contract modification or termination. The Supreme Court sided with the LDCs ruling that while parties can agree to allocate regulatory risks in their contracts, such agreements cannot bind third parties or affect FERC’s authority over rates and practices of natural-gas companies under Natural Gas Act.
In the dissenting opinion for Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United Distribution Companies et al., Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 107(c)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was incorrect. He believed that Congress intended to hold all responsible parties liable for environmental damages regardless of whether they owned or operated a facility at the time hazardous substances were disposed there. According to him, this broad liability is consistent with CERCLA’s overall goal: ensuring those who profit from activities causing environmental harm bear cleanup costs rather than taxpayers or innocent landowners. The majority's narrow interpretation would undermine this purpose by allowing companies like Mobil to escape responsibility simply because they didn't own or operate facilities when waste disposal occurred.