Opinion ID: 2780805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Board Appeal

Text: EM Logging appealed the termination to the Board. The Board found that EM Logging breached the load limit, haul route, and notification clauses and that “[t]he purchaser’s actions with respect to violating the requirements for load limits, notice of delays, and haul routes, each independently establish a basis that alone supports the termination for breach.” J.A. 21, 30. The Board determined that EM Logging breached the load limit clause because it exceeded weight limits established by Montana and the Forest Service. Although the Board found that the contract does not specify the meaning of “statutory load limits” in the load limit clause, it found that the load limits of a Forest Service Order and Montana state law applied. The Forest Service Order, issued by the Forest Supervisor of the Kootenai National Forest on February 24, 1986, prohibited trucks exceeding EM LOGGING v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 5 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight from travelling over roads in the Kootenai National Forest. J.A. 23. The Board concluded that EM Logging breached the load limit clause because EM Logging hauled 31 loads over Forest Service roads exceeding the Order’s weight limit. J.A. 25. It concluded that EM Logging also breached the load limit clause because it exceeded Montana state weight limits, as evidenced by the ticket received on January 20, 2011, and exceeded the weight limits listed on registrations for EM Logging’s trucks and trailers. Id. The Board determined that EM Logging breached the haul route clause and the notification clause because it “deviated from the designated haul routes and violated the twelve-hour limitation.” J.A. 26. It also noted that EM Logging overnighted trucks at locations not approved by the Forest Service. Id. The Board concluded that these repeated violations “amount to blatant and flagrant violations of material contractual provisions, given that the purchaser had sought, but was denied, deviations, and often was reminded of the requirements.” J.A. 29. It therefore upheld termination of the contract. J.A. 30.