Opinion ID: 6859
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Does paragraph four's conclusive presumption apply to

Text: 84 Exxon's billing statements for February and May 1985 85 CMR asserts the district court erred in applying paragraph four's conclusive presumption to amounts which Exxon billed it for February and May 1985. CMR argued below that even if paragraph four's conclusive presumption applied to Exxon's bills, it could not apply to amounts which Exxon had attempted to bill for February and May of 1985 because CMR never received billing statements for those months. The district court determined that actual receipt of the bill by CMR was required for the presumption of conclusiveness to apply. Exxon Corp., 775 F.Supp. at 978. The district court then noted that Exxon also prepared Status of Account Statements which reflected the billing amounts for February and May 1985. Because the Status of Account Statements reflected the charges incurred in February and May 1985, the district court determined that paragraph four's conclusive presumption attached to the amounts billed for those months. 86 The Status of Account Statement which the district court found reflected the charges incurred in February and May 1985 was issued in December 1986. Our review of the record demonstrates that this Status of Account Statement reflects the billing statements for February and May 1985 by including them in the total which CMR owed to Exxon. In other words, the statements did not specifically set out what the billing amounts for February and May 1985 were. The parties' joint operating agreement required Exxon to prepare bills for the preceding month which will be accompanied by statements which identify the authority for expenditure, lease or facility, and all charges and credits, summarized by appropriate classifications of investment and expense except that items of Controllable Material and unusual charges and credits shall be separately identified and fully described in detail. Exxon's Status of Account Statements are not detailed enough to satisfy the joint operating agreement's billing requirements and therefore are not entitled to the conclusive presumption afforded by paragraph four.