Court Opinion

ID: 9566794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:43:09.9228+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:41.942933
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Per curiam.
The appellees have made a motion for rehearing which we have carefully considered, and the same is hereby denied.
The appellants have made a motion for rehearing in which they contend that in the original opinion this court failed to rule upon an important issue in the case, namely, the price that Mansfield can charge Folger under the terms of the contract for propane gas "allocated” by Mansfield to Folger.
We acknowledge that this issue was decided by the judgment of the trial court. However, the original decision of this court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings in the trial court consistent with the opinion and decision of this court.
Code Ann. § 109A-2 — 615 (b) provides that "allocation” must take place in a manner that is "fair and reasonable.” We construe this language to mean that the amount allocated must be fair and reasonable and the price charged for the amount allocated must be in accordance with the provisions of the contract. Both of these issues are appropriate for future determination in the trial court on the basis of concrete facts with respect to the amount of propane gas allocated and on the basis of concrete facts with respect to the cost of propane gas to Mansfield which is allocated among Folger and all other customers of Mansfield.

Motions for rehearing denied.

All the Justices concur, except Hall, J., not participating.