Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02671/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02671-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

TPrtr}-, r:, . ..., ,: .. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG 11 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

WHAM, an Oklahoma general, Clerk ) 

partnership, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant/ ) 

Cross-Appellee, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

FINA OIL AND CHEMICAL COMPANY, ) 

a Delaware corporation, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee/ ) 

Cross-Appellant. ) 

Nos. 88-2671 

88-2840 

(D.C. No. 86-C-818-B) 

( N. D. Ok la. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Befor e McKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, Ci rcuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court holding 

that there was an enforceable contract between plaintiff Wham and 

defendant Fina in interpreting the contract to include only those 

properties listed on the books and records of Fina Oil and 

Chemical Company "under the lease name and number within the 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2671 Document: 01019975634 Date Filed: 08/11/1989 Page: 1 
a creage described." Wham appeals on the grounds that the trial 

cour t erred in restricting the coverage of the contract only to 

thos e wells which contribute revenue to the lease name and number 

as shown on Wham's trial exhibit no. 3. Wham alleges that the 

contract covered all wells located on the properties identified by 

the legal description and production formation on Fina's trial 

exh ibits 18, 19, and 20. Fina cross-appeals alleging that no 

contract was ever formed because parties failed to reach a meeting 

o f the minds. We agree with the district court that an 

enforceable contract exists between the two parties and find that 

t he trial court did not err in determining that the documents and 

e vidence presented in the district court support the trial court's 

d etermination that the oil and gas leases conveyed were limited to 

t hose identified by the lease names and numbers in Fina's trial 

exhibit no. 3. We AFFIRM for substantially the reasons given by 

t he district court and DENY relief on the cross-appeal. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-2-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2671 Document: 01019975634 Date Filed: 08/11/1989 Page: 2