Court Opinion

ID: 9616752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:49:30.707973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:00.933858
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
Mr. Justice McWilliams:
In its Petition for Rehearing Southeast asserts that the so-called “Gentlemen’s Agreement” between Southeast and Lamar is an enforceable contract and that this contract in and of itself is dispositive of the entire case. In thus asserting Southeast relies on Intermountain Rural Electric Association, Inc. v. Colorado Central Power Co. 135 Colo. 42, 307 P.2d 1101.
In our view the instant case is quite different from the Intermountain case in that the contract there under con*98sideration was found to be one which in nowise tended to impair the obligation of a public utility to serve the public. Furthermore, according to the briefs filed in the Intermountain case by both parties, the contract there under consideration was approved by the Public Utilities Commission.
Such, then, is a factual situation markedly different from that with which we are here concerned. In the instant case the Agreement most certainly would tend to impair the obligation of Lamar to serve the public. Moreover, the Agreement itself expressly provided that it must be approved by the Public Utilities Commission, and there is nothing in the record before us which would indicate that the Agreement was even considered, let alone approved, by the Public Utilities Commission.
Therefore, contrary to Southeast’s assertion in its Petition for Rehearing, the “Gentlemen’s Agreement” between Southeast and Lamar is not, as a matter of pure contract law, dispositive of the instant controversy. Evidence concerning the Agreement was received as having some bearing on the general issue of abandonment, but such evidence in and of itself was not controlling.
The Petition for Rehearing is denied.
All Justices concur in the foregoing.