Yes, what Texaco did was illegal. The court found that even though the final, formal contract wasn't signed, the press release and all the actions by Pennzoil and Getty showed they had a real, binding deal. Texaco absolutely knew about this deal—it even had internal notes about having to 'stop the train'—but it went ahead and intentionally broke it up by offering more money and promising to cover legal fees. This is a tort called 'tortious interference with a contract,' and Texaco was found guilty of it. The court upheld the jury's decision that Texaco owed Pennzoil billions of dollars for the damage it caused.

Yes, the evidence shows Texaco purposely and knowingly messed up the binding agreement between Pennzoil and Getty, causing big harm to Pennzoil. The agreement between Pennzoil and Getty was valid - they had agreed on the important parts and planned to stick to it. Texaco knew this but still got Getty to break the agreement by making a higher offer and doing other things. What Texaco did was on purpose and showed a big disregard for Pennzoil's rights. As a result, Pennzoil lost out on a lot of money and benefits it would have gotten from the deal. Pennzoil should get paid back for those losses and get extra money to punish Texaco and stop this kind of thing in the future. There is enough evidence to support what the jury decided.

Yes. A company tortiously interferes with a contract when it knowingly and actively induces a party to breach an existing binding agreement. The evidence was legally and factually sufficient for the jury to find that Pennzoil and the Getty entities had formed a binding contract and that Texaco knowingly induced its breach. The court looks to the objective manifestations of intent, not the parties' secret intentions, to determine if a contract was formed. The jury could reasonably conclude from the signed Memorandum of Agreement, the board's vote, and the joint press release that the parties intended to be bound, despite the contemplation of a more formal 'definitive' document. The press release's language, such as 'agreement in principle' and 'subject to,' did not, as a matter of law, negate the intent to be bound, especially when viewed alongside indicative language like 'will receive' and 'will be granted.' Furthermore, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for the jury to find Texaco had actual knowledge of the contract, including Texaco's internal notes about needing to 'stop the train,' its detailed study of the Pennzoil plan, and its agreement to indemnify the Getty entities against claims by Pennzoil. Texaco's actions went beyond merely making a competing offer; it actively developed and executed a strategy to persuade the Getty entities to abandon their agreement with Pennzoil by offering better terms and indemnity. The court affirmed the jury's finding of liability and the compensatory damage award but found the punitive damages excessive and ordered a remittitur of $2 billion.

Yes, the evidence supports the jury's finding that Texaco intentionally and knowingly interfered with the binding agreement between Pennzoil and the Getty entities, causing substantial damages to Pennzoil. The agreement between Pennzoil and the Getty entities was valid and enforceable, as all essential terms had been agreed upon and the parties intended to be bound. Texaco, aware of this agreement, induced the Getty entities to breach through its higher offer and other conduct. Texaco's actions were intentional, willful, and in wanton disregard of Pennzoil's rights. As a result, Pennzoil suffered significant pecuniary losses in the form of lost benefits and opportunities from the breached contract. Pennzoil is entitled to recover both compensatory damages for these losses and punitive damages to punish Texaco and deter such conduct in the future. The jury's award is supported by sufficient evidence.

Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot