Volume 49, Issue No. 2 (Fall 2020)

This is the entire issue in a single PDF document.

The ACA now goes down a new road that would seem to belong in a theme park somewhere on Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. If in this game of Hold ‘Em the Texas court's invalidation of the ACA holds, it's anyone's guess as to where this whole thing lands. And even if Texas is reversed, the decision may invigorate serious political discussion regarding how best to go forward, particularly while the case is still winding its way through the courts.

In examining the evolution of oil and gas leases and related energy industry agreements in the recorded public records, it is interesting to observe when certain clauses begin to appear and how they develop with the passage of time as additional agreements are drafted. These modifications almost always emerge to address concerns that were not apparent to the parties during the early days of the particular industry, but eventually became problematic as basic forms were applied in practice. In this context, necessity remains the mother of invention. In the same manner, it is anticipated that solar lease drafting practices will evolve to address lessons learned by landowners and lessees as a result of the first wave of widespread solar development in Texas. In the meantime, attorneys that represent landowners must anticipate potential problems by employing a creative approach that considers various hypothetical scenarios and outcomes for each unique client and tract of land. This requires a high degree of situational awareness and attention to detail, in addition to a base knowledge of how solar power is generated, stored, transported and marketed.

The Court in Northland Industries v Kouba held that that the Buyer only assumed liabilities expressed in the Agreement. The record reflects no evidence to support that the Buyer agreed to assume the Seller’s implied warranty of merchantability. Thus, the Buyer will not be liable for beach of the implied warranty of merchantability because the Agreement failed to show that the Buyer agreed to take on such liability.

The Court concluded that Cadence breached the wire transfer agreement by using provisional credit funds and failing to transfer funds from a “collected balance,” using Elizondo’s construction of the term. Therefore, the breach entitled Elizondo to offset Cadence’s chargeback by the amount of overdrawn funds as a matter of law.

This is the official Table of Contents for Volume 49, Issue 2 (Fall 2020).