Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60519

E C O R E S O U R C E S , IN C .; S W W C S E R V IC E S , IN C ., P la in tiffs -A p p e lla n ts ,
ve r s us CI TYOF HO RN LA KE , D e fe n d a n t-A p p e lle e .

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o r t he N o r t he r n Di s t r i c t o f M i s s i s s i ppi U SD C N o. 2: 08- C V

- 232

B ef ore SM ITH , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui t Ju dg es. JE R R YE
. SM ITH , C i rcui tJu dg e: *

E C O R esources ( “ E C O ” ) app eal s a su m m ary j u dg m en t i n i t s C on t ract C l a u s e c a s e a g a i n s tt h e C i t y o f H o r n L a k e , Mi s s i s s i p p i
. We a f f i r m. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma y 19, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60519 Document: 00511115861 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2010N o. 09- 60519

EC O assigned its contractu al rights to SWWC Services, Inc., inMarch 200 8. We refer 1 toth os e twoe ntiti esa s E C O. 2 I
. I n Oc t o b e r 2 0 0 2 , ECO a n d t h e c i t y e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t b y wh i c h ECO 1
w o ul d o pe r at e a nd m ai nt ai n t he c i t y’ s w at e r t r e at m e nt and s upp l y s ys t e m s a nd i t s w as t e w at er sy st em i n exc hange f or r egul ar m ont hl y paym ent s f r om t he c i t y. Th e a gr ee d- t o t er m w as f i ve year s: f

r om O c t obe r 1, 2002, t o Sept em ber30, 2007. T w o y ea rs l a ter, the pa rti es m od i fied th e con tract, so th a t i t exten d ed cred i t t o t he c i t y t o def

e r a fe w pay m e nt s , and i n re t ur n t he c i t y e xt e nde d t he e nd o f t he te r m b y tw o y e a r s , u n til S e p te m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 9
. I n J ul y 20 05 , a ne w m ay o r a nd Bo ar d o f Al de r m e n c am e i n t o o f f i c e a nd
c ont i nued t o pay f

or E C O ’ s se r vi c es und ert he c ont r ac t
. O n Sept em ber19, 2006, t he c i t y vo t e d t o m o di f y t he ag r e e m e nt by de l e t i ng c e r t ai n l i f t s t at i o ns f

r o m t he contract
. E C O agreed to t h e m odi f i cat i on . O n Sep t em b e r 19, 200 8, t h e B oard
u n a n i m ou sly pa sse d O rd er # 09 -31 -08 , can celi n g th e con tract. EC O s ue d o n Oct o be r 1 , 2 00 8, a l l e gi ng, i n r e l e va nt pa r t , a vi o l at i o n o f t he Co n t r a c t Cl a u s e , U. S. C ONST . art
. I , § 10, cl
. 1. B ot h si des m oved f or s u m m ary j udgm ent
. The di st r i c tc our tgr ant ed s um m ar y j udgm entf ort he c i t y, hol di ng ( 1) th at t h e ci t y w as au t h ori zed to can celt h e contr actun der M IS S . C O D E A NN . § 31-7- 13(n) ( i) ; ( 2) t h at t h e cancel l ati on di d n ota m ou n t to a substanti ali m pa i rm e nt , b e c aus e § 3 1- 7- 13 ( n) ( i) w as o n t he b o o ks b e f o r e EC O a nd t he c i t y c o nt r ac t e d; a nd, a l t e r nat i ve l y, ( 3) t hat t he c anc e l l at i o n w as j us t i f i e d by a s i gni f

i c ant an d l egi t i m ate pub l i c purp ose. Case: 09-60519 Document: 00511115861 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2010N o. 09- 60519

3 II. E C O ap p ea l s. W e rev i ew a su m m a ry j u d gm en t de no vo , a p p l y i n gt h e s a me s ta n d a r d a s d id th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. K ornm an & A ssoc s. v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 527 F. 3d 4 4 3 , 4 5 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); se e g en er a lly F ED . R. C IV . P. 56. E C O a sse rts a violati on of th e C on tract C l a u s e . S ee U
. S. C ONST . art. I, § 1 0, c l
. 1
. Con t r ac t cl aus e di s put e s a r e g o ve r ne d b y a t hr e e - pa r t t e s t
. “ The t hre sho l d i nqui r y i s w het hert he .
. . l a w h a s, in fac t , ope r at ed as a s ubst ant i al i m p a i rm en t of

a co n tractu a lrelati on sh i p . ” L ip sc o m b v . C o lu m b u s M u n . S ep a ra te S ch
. D ist. , 269 F. 3d 494, 504 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng E n ergy R ese rves G roup , I n c. v . K an. Powe r & L igh t C o. , 459 U
. S. 400, 411 ( 1983) )
. I f w e f i nd subs t ant i al i m pa i r m e nt , w e de t e r m i ne w he t he r t he g o ve r ni ng aut ho r i t y had a “ s i gni f i c ant
a n d l eg i ti m a te p u b l i c p u rp ose be h i n d the reg u l a ti on . . . . ” I d. ( q uo t i ng E n e rgy R ese rves , 4 59 U
. S. a t4 11

- 12 )
. And, f i nal l y, i f

i t do e s , w e “ de t e r m i ne w he t he rt he i m p a i rm en t i s rea son a b l e a n d n ece ssa ry . ” I d. a t 5 05. E C O ’ s c l ai m fai l s atst ep on e. A ccord i n g to E C O , the ci ty’ s ord er ca n celi n g th e con tract w a s “t h e u l ti m a te i n su b stan ti a li m p a i rm en t. ” T h e cit y, ho w ev er, cl a i m s th a t i t ha d the ri gh t t o c anc e lund er M IS S . C ODE . A NN . § 3 1 -7 -1 3 (n )(i) an d M iss iss ip p i c om m on l aw , w h i ch pre dat e t he c ont r ac tw i t h E C O
. The c onc er n w i t h re gar d t o s ubst ant i al i m pai r m enti s “ t he ext ent t o w hi c h t he l aw has c ont r avene d t he r eas onabl e e xp ecta ti on s of t h e p a rti es.” L i p s c o mb , 2 69 F. 3d at 50 6. And “ al lpe r s o ns de al i ng w i t h [ m uni c i pal i t i es ] ar e c harge d w i t h know l edge of t he l aw s by w hi c h i t i s gov ern ed , w h i ch l i m i t t h e p ow er of i ts off i cers . ” Tu l l os v. T

ow n of Mag ee , 179 So. 5 5 7 , 55 8 (M i ss. 19 3 8 ). E C O resp on d s by cl a i m i n g th a t M IS S . C ODE . A NN . § 2 -2 7 -7
ess e nt i al l y t r um ps § 3 1- 7- 13 ( n) ( i) a nd a l l o w s m uni c i pa l i t i e s t o b i nd s uc c e s sor Case: 09-60519 Document: 00511115861 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/19/2010N o. 09- 60519

Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompk ins , 3 0 4U .S
. 6 4( 1 9 3 8). 2 Section 31-7 -13 is Missi ssippi’s public purch ase law. Itcovers, in part, contracts for 3 solid waste colle ctionor disposal , sewage colle ctionor disposal , an d co ntracts forpublic co nstructio nan d re ntals
. Seegeneral lyM I SS . C ODE . ANN . § 31-7 -13. ECO’s claimthat § 31-7 -13 is wh olly inap pli cable to its cont rac t is unp ers uas ive. ECO 4 quo tes fro m a state attorneygene ral’ s opinio n that states, “I n a turn -key contract entered pursuant toSection 2 1- 27

- 7, the fact that aprivate c ompany would be purch asin g parts and equipment toope ratean d maintain a municipal wat er sy stem woul d not make th e co mpany subj ect to the state public purch asin g laws.” Miss. Att’yGen. Op. 200 0-06 73, Sny der (Nov . 27 , (c ontinu ed
.. .) 4 b oa rd s i n certa i n typ es o f l on g-term con tracts, i n cl u d i n g it s con tract. E C O ’ s C on t ra ct C la u se c l ai m , t h en , i s i n real i t y an an al ysi s of t h e pow er o f m uni c i pa l i t i e s und e r M i s s i s s i ppil aw . The r e l e va nti s s ue s , c o nc e r ni ng t he constr u ct i on of

§ 21- 27-7 an d the i n t erpl ay betw een § 21- 27-7 an d § 31-7- 13, are o ne s o f f i r s ti m pr e s s i o n, l e av i ng us t o m ak e a n E rie gu ess SS t o “ de t e r m i ne , i n o ur 2 b e s t ju d g m e n t, h o w [th e M is s is s ip p i S u p r e m e C o u r t] w o u ld re s o lv e th e is s u e if p rese n ted w i th the sam e ca se.” S ix Fl ag s, I n c. v. W est chest er S u rpl u s Lines Ins. C o. , 5 6 5 F .3 d 9 4 8 , 9 5 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). S ection 31 -7-13 (n)( i) sp ea k s i n bro a d term s. Its ta te s , i n releva n t pa rt, 3 t hat“ [ a] l lc o nt r ac t s f o r t he pur c has e o f

co m m o di t i e s , eq ui pm e ntand p ubl i c c o nst ructi on (i n cl u di n g, b u tn ot li m i t ed to, repai r and m ai n t en an ce) , m ay be l et f or p e r io d s o f n ot m ore tha n si xty ( 6 0 ) m on th s i n ad va n ce . . . . ” M IS S . C ODE A NN . § 3 1- 7- 13 ( n) ( 1)
. And i ta dds t hat“ [ t ] e r m c o nt r ac t s f o r a pe r i o d e xc e e di ng t w e nt y- f o ur( 24 ) m o nt hs s hal la l s o b e s ubj e c t t o r at i f i c at i o n o r c anc e l l at i o n b y go ve r ni n g aut ho r i t y bo ar ds t ak i ng o f f i c e s ubs e que ntt o t he g o ve r ni ng aut ho r i t y bo ar d
en tering the con tract. ” I d. E C O a r g u e s th a t b e c a u s e s e c tio n 3 1 -7 -1 3 is g e n e r a l, it is n o t co n tr o llin gin t h e face of

a contr ary st atute t h at s pea ks to t h e speci f i cs of th e c o n tra ct. A s a 4 Case: 09-60519 Document: 00511115861 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/19/2010N o. 09- 60519

(...continu ed) 4 200 0), 200 0 WL 189 994 9, at *2 (Miss. A .G.). But it is not in disputeth at ECOis not subj ect to the state purch asin g laws in its day-to -dayoperation of th e wat er and sewagesy stems; the disputeis wheth er and to wh at extent the city is subj ect to the state purch asin g laws whe n it ente rsintomainte n a ncec ontr a ct s withe ntiti essucha s E C O. Di ogene s Editio ns v. State , 7 0 0S o. 2 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 0(Mi ss. 1 9 9 7); see alsoJ oh nso nv . Thom 5 as , 98 2 S o. 2 d 40 5, 4 23 (Miss. 20 08) (“Be cau se Rule4(h) is the specific rule applicab le in today’sc a sean d Rule6 (b)( 1 ) isagen er al- a pp licationrule , th e lan gu a ge in4 (h) co ntrol s.”). 5 m att er of

l aw , E C O i s c orrec tt h at, u n d e r M i ssi ssi pp il aw , “ speci f i c s t atutes govern over gen eral on es. ” B u t t h e “ speci f i c” st atute E C O poi n t s t o as authori z5 in gm u n ic ip a litie s to e n te r in to lo n g e r , b in d in gco n tr a c ts d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r ily
n eg a te § 3 1 -7-13
. A n d , m ore i m p orta n tl y, t h a t st a tu te d o e s n ot ev en ap p ea r to cover i t s c on t ract
SS atl eas tnotent i r el y. E C O rel i es on § 21-27- 7, w h i ch by i t s t i t l e governs w ater w orks. I t st ates, in fu ll: T h e governing au t h ori t i es of m u n i ci pa l i t i es s h al lha ve t h e pow er to ere ct, pu rch a se , m ai nt ai n and oper a te w a terw ork s, an d to reg u l a te th e sa m e, to p resc ri b e t h e rates at w h i ch w a ter sh a l l b e sup p l i ed to t he i nhabi t ant s, and t o ac qui r e by purc hase , donat i on o r c ondem nat i on , i n t h e na m e of t h e m u n i ci pa l i t y, s u itabl e groun ds, w i t h i n or w i t ho utt he c o r po r at e l i m i t s, u pon w hi c h t o e r e c t w at e r w o r ks , a nd al so the ri gh t
- of

- w ay t o a n d f rom su ch w orks a n d t h e ri gh t
- of

- w ay f or l aying w aterpi pes w i t h i n t h e c o rp o ra t e l i m i t s, an d f rom such w at er w or ks t o t he m uni c i pa l i ty, and t o e xt end s uch r i ght

- of

- w ay fr o m tim e to tim e . T h e g o v er n inga u th o rities sh a ll h a v e th e p o w erto contr actw i t h any pers on f or t h e m aint ena n ce an dope ra ti on of w a ter w o rk s. S a ida u th o rities sh a ll h a v e th e p o w erto co n tra ct w ith any pers on f

or t h e e rec t i on an dm aint ena n ce of w ate rw orks f

or a t erm n otexc eedi ng t w enty-f i ve ( 25) ye ars, f

ixi ng w ate r r ate s i n t h e c on t ract s u b j e c tt o mun i c i

p a lr egul at i o ns . Acontr actf or t h e erec t i on or p u r c h a s e o f w a te r w o r k s s h a ll n o t, h o w e v e r , b e e n te r e d in to u n til sub m i t t ed to a vote of t h e qu al i f

i ed el ect ors an d ap proved by a m aj ori t y o f t ho s e v o t i ng. A c o nt r ac t f o r m ai n t en anc e und e r w hi c h t he Case: 09-60519 Document: 00511115861 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/19/2010N o. 09- 60519

ECO add s that“[n] o Mis sis sip pi cas e has co nst rue dM i s s i s s ipp i Code § 21-2 7-7 (As 6 Amen ded) to deny therights of a priv ate company who has ente red intoa contractfor a term extendingor a spe cificfixed perio d of time for a water and sewer co ntract.” Tru e e nou gh . But EC O points to no Mississippi case that h as co nstru ed § 21 -27-7as validating such a c ontr act, eith er. See, e. g., M I SS . C ODE . ANN . § 21-2 7-11 (“Whe never us ed in Sec tio ns 21-2 7-11 through

7 21-2 7-69 : . . . (b) The te rm‘sys tem ’ includ eswat erw ork s sys tem , wa tersupp ly syst em , se wa ge system, sewagedisposal system, or anycomb inationth ereof, inclu ding any combined waterwo rk s an d se wa ge sy st em .”). 6 person w h o w i l lperf

orm su ch m ai n t en an ce i s w h ol l y or part i al l y resp o ns i b l e f

o r f i x i ng wat e r r a t e s s ha l l no t b e e nt e r e d i nt o un t i l s ubm i tted to a vo te of th e qu a l i fi ed electors an d a p p rov ed by a m aj ority of t h ose v o tin g . Itshallbe un l aw f u lf or any m u n i ci pa l l y ow n ed w ater w orks t o sup pl y w aterf ree of charge, or i n an y am ou n t l ess t han t he f

i xed c harge s, t o a ny per so n, f i r m orc or por at i on, ex c eptas i s e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z e d b y l a w. M IS S . C ODE . A NN . § 21-27- 7 ( em ph asi s ad ded )
. E C O argu es t h at § 21-27- 7 ap pl i es t o i t s c o nt r ac tt o o pe r at e and m ai nt ai n t he c i t y’ s w at e r a nd s e w ag e s ys t e m s a nd
s pe c i f i c al l y gr ant s m uni c i pa l i t i e s t he aut ho r i t y t o e nt e r i nt o b i ndi ng c o nt r ac t s up t o t w ent y- f

i ve year s i n l engt h. As addi t i onals upport , E C O poi nt s t o t he fac tt hat t he c o nt r ac tw i t h t he c i t y s t at e s , i n i t s r e c i t al , t hati t w as e nt e r e d i nt o pur s uant t o § 21- 27- 7. 6 S ection 21 -27 -7 d oe s n ot d efi n e w a terw ork s, bu t i t do es n ot s p ea k at allto

“ w aste w ater ” or sew age system operati on or m ai n t en an ce. Fu rt h erm ore, ot h er sect i on s of

t h e code use “ w ater w orks” an d “s ew age system ” al on gsi de each ot h er, sug g e stin g tha tsew age i s not sub sum ed w i t h i n t h e def i n i t i on of

w ater w orks. 7 A nd E C O poi nt s us t o no c as es i n w hi c h M i ss i ss i ppi c our t s have c ol l apse d s ew age s e r vi c e s i nt o g e ne r alw at e r w o r ks s e r vi c e s . The c l o s e s t EC O c o m e s t o f i ndi ng sup port f

or readi n g § 21-27- 7 as i m pl i ci t l y coveri n g t h e operati on of a sew er s ysCase: 09-60519 Document: 00511115861 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/19/2010N o. 09- 60519

7 tem alon gs i d e a w a ter sy stem i s i n com m en ts, m a d e in p a ssing , i n a co u p l e of att orney general opi n i on s, w h i ch, un der M i ssi ssi pp il aw , provi de gu i da n ce but are
n o t b in d in go n co u r ts
. See , e , g. , B allv. Mayor & B d
. of A l d erm en , 983 So. 2d 295 , 3 0 5 (M iss
. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e Ho r an o pi ni o n pr o vi de s t he b e s t l ang uag e fo r E CO
. I t st at e s , “A m un i ci pa l i t y m ay con t ractw i t h a pri va te cor porati on t o m ai n t ai n an d op erat e a m u n i ci p a lw a ter an d sew er sy stem f or a sp ecif

i ed a m ou n t to b e p a i d m on th l y to th e co r p o ra ti on w i th the pr ofi ts gen era ted by the sys tem accr u i n g to th e cit y purs uant t o M i ss . C ode A nn. § 21- 27- 7. ” M i ss . A t t ’ y G en. O p. , H or an ( Feb. 12, 199 3) , 199 3 W L 669 111 , at *1 (M i ss. A
. G
. )
. Th e sec on d op i n i on E C O poi n t s t o, S nyd er , i s a bi tm ore opaqu e: I n res pon se t o a qu est i on aski n g t h e att orney ge ne r alt o “ r e af

f i r m [ i t s ] pr i o r opi ni o ns re ga r di ng t he a ut ho r i t y o f a Ci t y e nt e r i ng i nt o c ont r ac t s w i t h privat e c ont r ac t or s f ort he m ai nt enance and oper at i on o f w at er and sew er s yst em s, ” t h e opi n i on st ates t h at t h e of f i ce af f i rm s i t s pri or s t atem en t t h at “ S ect i on 21-27- 7 i s s uf f i c i e ntt o pe r m i t m u n i ci pa lgoverning au t h ori t i es t o c ont r ac tw i t h a pr i vat e c om pany t o o per at e a w a t e rsy s t e m . . . .” M is s . A t t ’y G e n . O p . 2 0 0 0 -0 6 7 3 , S n y d e r (N o v . 2 7 , 2 0 0 0 ), 2 0 0 0 W L 1 8 9 9 9 4 9 , a t * 1 (M is s . A .G .) (em p h a sis a d d e d ). N ei t h er opi n i on , h o w ever, provi des an y sem bl an ce of reasoni n g f

or t h ose st atem en t s. T h e opi n i on s do not ana l yze § 21- 27-7 t o deter m i n e t h at “ w ater
w or ks” i ncl udes se w ers ys t em s, and t hey do notci t e any c as el aw s ugges t i ng t hat t hat i s s o . And, a ta ny r at e , t he o pi ni o ns a r e no t a l la b o o n t o EC O
. I n S nyd er , t he a t t o r ne y ge ne r al no t e s t hat , e ve n wher e a c o nt r ac t i s e nt e r e d i nt o pur s uant t o § 2 1- 27

- 7, “ a m uni c i pa l i t y m us t c o m pl y w i t h s t at ut e s g o ve r ni ng pub l i c c o nCase: 09-60519 Document: 00511115861 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/19/2010N o. 09- 60519

Mi ss. Att’yGe n . Op. 2 0 0 0 -0 6 7 3 , supra , 20 00 WL 189 994 9, at *1
. 8 See id. 9 8 st r uct i on, i ncl udi ng Sec t i on 31- 7- 13”

SS t he v e r y s e ct i on t h at E C O argu es does not 8 appl y be c ause t he c ont r ac tw as ent er ed i nt o pur suantt o § 21- 27- 7. I ndeed, ev en i f

w e w er e t o r ead § 21- 27- 7 as encom pass i ng a cont r ac t t hat p r o v id e d n o t o n ly fo r w a te r s e r v ic e s b u t a ls o fo r s e w a g e , th e ca n c e lla tio n p r o v is i o n i n § 3 1

- 7

- 1 3 ( n ) ( i) mi g h ts t i l la p p l y . A s i d e f r o m t h e fa c t t h a t t h e v e r y s a me att orney gen eralopi n i on on w h i ch E C O r e li es f or i t s broad i n t erpret ati on of § 2 1 -27 -7 su gg ests th a t con tracts u n d er § 2 1 -27 -7 are n ev erth eless su b j ect to § 31

- 7- 13 , t he c o nt r ac the r e i nvo l ve d, a t l e as t i n part, the o pe r at i o n a nd m ai n-

9 te n a n c e o f a s e w a g e s y s te m . S e c tio n 3 1 -7 -1 3 e x p r e s s ly lis ts “s o lid w a s te co ll ect i on ” an d “c on t ractf or s ew age col l ect i on or di sposal ” a s m att ers t h at i t covers . S ee M IS S . C ODE . A NN . § 3 1 -7 -13
. W e fi n d i t ha rd to acce p t E C O ’ s en trea ty to i gn ore t h at express l an gu age, parti cul arl y i n l i gh t of t h e absen ce of

an y di scuss i o n a bo uts e w ag e s ys t e m s i n § 2 1- 27

- 7. Ess e nt i al l y, t o ag r e e w i t h EC O o n t he in a p p lica b i l i ty of § 31 -7-13 (n)( i), the cou rt w ou l d n ee d to rea d i n “sol i d w a ste /-
s e w ag e c o l l e c t i o n a nd d i s po s al” t o § 21

- 27

- 7 w hi l e s i m ul t ane o us l y r e ad i ng i to ut of § 31- 7- 13. W e dou bt M i ssi ssi pp icourt s w ou l d d o so. A s w e noted previ ou sl y, § 31- 7- 13(n) ( i) speak s i n broad ter m s. I t cov ers

“ [ a] l lcontr act s f

or the pu rchase of

com m odi t i es, eq u i pm en t a n d p u bl i c c on st ruct i on (i n cl u di n g, bu t n ot l i m i t ed to, repai r and m ai n t en an ce) , [w h i ch] m ay be l et for p eriod s of n ot m ore th a n s i xty (60 ) m on th s i n ad va n ce . . . . ” M IS S . C ODE . A NN . § 31

- 7- 13 ( n) ( i)
. And i tpr o vi de s t hat“ [ t ] e r m c o nt r ac t s f o r a pe r i o d e xc e e di ng t w ent y- f

our( 24) m ont hs s hal lal so be s ubj ect to r at i f i c at i on o r c ance l l at i on by go ve rn i n g a u th ority bo a rd s tak i n g o ff i ce su b seq u en t t o th e g ov ern i n g a u th ority Case: 09-60519 Document: 00511115861 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/19/2010N o. 09- 60519

Cri t t en denv . Boo n ev il le , 4 5S o. 7 2 3 , 7 2 5(Mi ss. 1 9 0 8). 10E CO argu es a s wellth at the cityis ju diciallyesto pped from cl aimingth at ther e i s no 11 bin ding contract, because the new board ratifie d th e co ntract whe n it continu ed toac cept ben

ef it s un de r itan d wh enit vot edinS ep te mb er2 0 0 6t o ch a n ge ce rt ainc ontr a ctp rovis io n s. C f. M I SS . C ODE . ANN . § 3 1 -7 -1 3 (n)(i) (allowin gn ew -b oardr atificationof prior- b oardc ontr a ct s)
. Wedis a gre e. Me re lyc ontinuin gt o re ce ive b en ef it s un de r th e co ntr a ctdoe s notc on stitutea sse nt. See, e.g. , Williamson Pou nde rs Architects PC v. Tun ica C oun ty, Miss. , 59 7 F .3d 2 92, 297 (5thC ir. 2 010) (quotin gBr i d ges&H i l lv . Bd
. of

S u p e rvisors , 5 8M iss . 817, 820 (1881) (“It takes an affirmative act of th e board within the scope of its authority, evidenced byanentry on its minut es, to bin d th e co unty bya contract . . . .”)). And nothing inth e Se ptember20 06 mi nute s evinc esboardappr oval of enteri ng into a new cont rac t wi th ECO. To the contr ary, the relevant d oc um ent approve d byth e city council, as re corded in its minut es, inclu ded an express di sclai mer th at the negotiated chan ge s “shall in no way con stitut e . . . a r atification or approval of th e aforemention ed c ontr act by th e c ur r en t HornL ake Mayo r and Board o f Al dermen”

SSa provisionto whichE CO a ssented. 9 b o a r d en tering the con tract. ” I d. Al t h o u g h ECO ma k e s a c o l o r a b l e a r g u m e nt t hat t he c o m m o n- l aw r ul e ag ai ns t b i ndi ng s uc c e s s o r s t o w hi c h t he c i t y r e fe r s c o nt ai ne d e xc e pt i o ns fo r suc h f unc t i o ns a s t he e r e c t i o n a nd o pe r at i o n o f w at e r w o r ks
or a c on t ractf

or l i gh t i n g, t h ose except i on s do not m ap onto t h e current st atutor y f r am e w o r k. The pl ai n fac ti s t hatEC O po i nt s t o no c as e s t o s upp o r t i t s a r gum e nt th a t t h e b r o a d , e x p r e s s te r m s in § 3 1 -7 -1 3 (n )(1 ) d o n o t r e a c h its co n tr a c t a n d lim it t h e pow er of

contr act i n g m u n i ci pa l i t i es t o bi n d thei r s u cces sors . In lig h t o f th e te x t o f § 2 1 -2 7 -7 a n d § 3 1 -7 -1 3 ( n )(i), it is fa r fr o m “p la in ly
m ani fe s t ” t hatt he m uni c i pa l i t y had t he po w e r t o bi nd i t s s uc c e s s o r s t o t he c o n-

10 t ract en t ered i n t o i n 200 2 an d m odi f i ed i n 200 4. W e agree w i t h t h e di st ri ctcourt t h at t h e 200 4 m odi f

i cat i on , extend i n g t h e l en gth of t h e contr act f

rom f i ve years t o s e ve n, w as a n u l t ra vi res act i n t h e sense t h at t h e contr act i n g board coul d n ot l eg a l l y a gr ee to bind a su cces sor b oa rd to t h a t con tract. 11 I n s um m ar y, s e c t i o n 3 1- 7- 13 ( n) ( i) l i m i t s a s i t t i ng bo ar d’ s a bi l i t y t o b i nd a
m uni c i pa l i t y i n t e r m - m ai nt e nanc e cont r ac t s t o no l o nge r t han t w e nt y- f o ur Case: 09-60519 Document: 00511115861 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/19/2010N o. 09- 60519

10 m o nt hs

SS an y t erm i n excess of t h at i s s u bj ectt o cancel l ati on by a successorboard

SS a n d a n y i m p l i ed ex cep ti on i n § 21 -27 -7 i s n ot ap p l i ca b l e to th e p rese n t con tract. Th e s ubse quent bo ar d’ s c ance l l at i on, aut hor i ze d as i t w as by M i ss i ss i ppil aw t hat preda t es t h e contr act w i t h E C O , di d n otrun af ou lof t h e C on t ractC l au se. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-60519 Document: 00511115861 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/19/2010