Peironnet v. Matador Resources Co.
2013 WL 3752474, 144 So.3d 791, 2013 La. LEXIS 1560 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party is precluded from seeking rescission of a contract due to unilateral error when that error is the result of the complaining party's own inexcusable negligence, such as the failure of an experienced party or their agent to read the clear and unambiguous terms of the written agreement.
Facts:
- On June 22, 2004, Plaintiffs Cynthia Fry Peironnet, Elizabeth Fry Franklin, and Eleanor Baugnies de St. Marceaux leased 1805.34 acres to Prestige Exploration, Inc., which later assigned the lease to Matador Resources Company.
- Plaintiffs Peironnet and Franklin were represented by agents at Regions Bank, including John Moore, who were experienced petroleum landmen.
- As the lease's 2007 expiration neared, 168.95 acres remained undeveloped and were subject to release under the lease's Pugh clause.
- Matador, through its agents, initiated negotiations to extend the lease, with correspondence and bonus payment calculations focusing on the 168.95 undeveloped acres.
- Matador presented Plaintiffs' agents with a written Extension Agreement that unambiguously amended the original lease by extending its primary term, thereby covering the entire 1805.34 acres and all depths.
- Plaintiffs' agents and Plaintiff Marceaux signed the clear and unambiguous Extension Agreement, believing it only applied to the 168.95 acres, without having read its terms carefully.
- In early 2008, the discovery of the Haynesville Shale formation dramatically increased the value of the 'Deep Rights' under the entire leased property, which had been included in the extension.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Matador Resources Company in the District Court, seeking to rescind or reform the lease extension agreement.
- The District Court granted partial summary judgment for Matador, dismissing the Plaintiffs' claim of unilateral error.
- After a trial on the remaining issue of mutual error, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Matador.
- The District Court entered a final judgment for Matador, also ruling that continuous drilling operations had maintained the lease.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal reversed in part, finding the District Court erred and reforming the extension agreement based on Plaintiffs' unilateral error.
- Matador, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's unilateral error vitiate consent and warrant rescission of a contract when the error results from that party's own failure to read the clear, unambiguous terms of the agreement, particularly when represented by experienced agents?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Knoll
No. A party's unilateral error does not vitiate consent or warrant rescission of a contract when the error is deemed inexcusable. An error is inexcusable when a party, particularly a sophisticated one represented by experienced agents, fails to take elementary precautions such as reading a clear and unambiguous contract. The court reasoned that while error can vitiate consent, relief is unavailable where the error stems from the complaining party's own contractual negligence. In this case, the Extension Agreement was written in plain English and clearly extended the primary term of the entire original lease. The Plaintiffs were represented by experienced petroleum landmen whose failure to read the document was an inexcusable lack of elementary prudence. The court concluded that signatures are not 'mere ornaments,' and parties are presumed to know the contents of documents they sign. Therefore, the Plaintiffs were precluded by their own inexcusable error from rescinding the agreement.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'inexcusable error' or 'contractual negligence' doctrine as a robust defense against claims of unilateral error in Louisiana. It imposes a high standard of diligence on contracting parties, especially sophisticated actors in commercial settings, to read and understand the agreements they sign. The ruling reinforces the primacy of clear, unambiguous written terms over prior negotiations and limits the ability of a party to escape a bad bargain resulting from their own inattentiveness. This has a significant impact on contract-intensive fields like oil and gas, underscoring that courts will not act to protect experienced parties from the consequences of their own negligence.
Unlock the full brief for Peironnet v. Matador Resources Co.