Court Opinion

ID: 9790086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:45:57.741901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:26.139816
License: Public Domain

ROONEY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I disagree with that said in the majority opinion in only two respects:
I
I question the characterization of the affidavit of a consulting petroleum engineer as “merely” expressing his opinion on the question of whether or not the drilling was on the “prospect” of Blackmore. Even if performance by appellees under the contract necessitated the use of Blackmore’s geology — an element that is certainly not in the contract as drawn by appellees — expert testimony in the form of an opinion is the only available evidence to counter a bald assertion that the geology was not used. The affidavit set forth the identity of the material upon which the opinion was based and the geology resulting therefrom. The affidavit of Gordon Heele reflects that he conceived the “project” as a stratigraphic one and that Blackmore’s geology was a structural one. A “prospect” may be discovered either way. Blackmore’s earlier conclusion was verified by Heele, whether or not the same method was used. A summary judgment is not appropriate where expert testimony is required in order to make a finding of fact. Mealey v. City of Laramie, Wyo., 472 P.2d 787 (1970), on remand 485 P.2d 1019 (1971), appeal dismissed 404 U.S. 931, 92 S.Ct. 282, 30 L.Ed.2d 245 (1971). Accordingly, a material factual issue is present if the contract is interpreted to require the use of Blackmore’s geology as a condition upon which he was to be paid. If it is not so interpreted, the only defense is one of laches — to be discussed infra.
As reflected in the quotation in the majority opinion from Miller v. Reiman-Wuerth Company, Wyo., 598 P.2d 20, 24 (1979), appellant is entitled to all favorable inferences to be drawn from the facts. We prefer cases to be determined upon their merits. This one should be.
II
This is a contract action. The requested relief arises from an alleged failure of performance by appellants under the contract. The contract was drafted by appellants and is to be considered most strongly against them. McGinnis v. General Petroleum Corporation, Wyo., 385 P.2d 198 (1963). In the absence of overreaching, the court should not aid those who have made an unwise bargain in the formation of a contract. Matter of Estate of Frederick, Wyo., 599 P.2d 550 (1979). The contract, dated February 5, 1963, provides:
“Mr. R.B. Blackmore P.O. Box 1588 Casper, Wyoming
“AREA OF INTEREST: Twp. 42 North, Ranges 75 & 76 West[,] CAMPBELL COUNTY, WYOMING
“Mr. R.B. Blackmore:
“This letter will constitute the written confirmation of our verbal agreement concerning the above captioned Area of Interest.
“If Davis Oil Company elects to drill the prospect within the above described and outlined Area of Interest, then Davis Oil Company agrees to purchase a minimum of 50,000 acres within the outline of the above described Area of Interest, which acreage shall be burdened with a maximum of Five Percent (5%) overriding royalty interest. Where such acreage within *339the outline of the above Area of Interest bears less than Five Percent (5%) overriding royalty interest, then and in that event, Davis Oil Company agrees to convey unto R.B. Blackmore, the difference between the existing override and the above stated maximum override of Five Percent (5%).
“If this constitutes your understanding of our agreement, please so indicate in the space provided below and return one copy to us for our files.
“Yours very truly,
DAVIS OIL COMPANY
/s/ Marvin Davis
Marvin Davis
General Partner
“AGREED AND ACCEPTED this February 5th, 1963.
“by /s/ R.B. Blackmore R.B. Blackmore”
The literal meaning of the contract results in a promise by appellees to purchase 50,000 acres in Township 42 North, Ranges 75 and 76 West, Campbell County, Wyoming, and to pay an overriding royalty interest to Blackmore if appellees “elect to drill the prospect” in such area. Appellees contend for a different meaning inasmuch as the use of the word “prospect” creates an ambiguity in the contract with the resulting problem in this case. Does it recognize the then acceptance of geology so that any drilling thereafter in the area of interest meets the requirement for payment, i.e. the literal meaning, or does it anticipate further examination of the geology from which an election will be made whether or not to drill in the area of interest with payment contingent upon the election being in favor of drilling, i.e. changing the literal meaning? Which was the intent of the parties? Appellants could have used language to clarify the intent. They could have provided that the condition for payment was drilling based solely on Blackmore’s geology, or based on partial use of such geology. A time limit for drilling could have been established. It should be remembered that appellees were scriveners of this contract and that it should be considered most strongly against them.
The definition of a “prospect” in the majority opinion is not incorrect. The terms “prospector” (one searching for a suitable place to mine) and “prospect” (superficial indication of a mineral deposit) are well known terms in development of hard minerals. The term “grubstake” (furnishing supplies in return for share of discovered minerals) is likewise a well understood term.
“Prospect” is a term frequently used in various types of oil and gas agreements and which may be defined very broadly or narrowly according to its context.1
“ ‘ * * * The term is of course a term of art, and its meaning must be determined from the context in which it is used. Philologically, it is formed from two Latin words “pro”, meaning forward or ahead and “spicere” meaning to see or look. There are, of course, many shades of meaning attributed to the term,- depending on the frame of reference in which it is applied; but from all of the evidence bearing on its meaning in the oil and gas industry, the literal translation of forward looking or looking to the future seems a quite proper basis on which to build a more technical and more accurate definition.
* * Sfc * ⅜5 ⅜
“ ‘ * * * [I]n the oil and gas industry, a prospect commences with the determination of the existence of a certain geological structure, conducive to the production of oil and gas underlying a certain area of land. The actual existence of such minerals must then be determined and confirmed by actual drilling and production of said minerals. The continued exploration and drilling of additional wells *340then determine the extent of the area underlain by the geological structure which originally formed the basis for the drilling of the first well or wells. When by drilling it is ascertained that the limits of the producing geological structure have been reached, then the whole area underlain by that structure becomes a “field”. From that, we conclude that a “prospect” contemplates, in its optimum aspect, the creation of a “field”.’ ” Wurzlow v. Placid Oil Company, La.App., 279 So.2d 749, 754 (1973).
The meaning to be given to the term in this contract is a forward looking one, the scope of which depends upon the intent of the parties. The primary function of the court in interpreting a contract is to give effect to the intention of the parties. Busch Development, Inc. v. City of Cheyenne, Wyo., 645 P.2d 65 (1982); Amoco Production Company v. Stauffer Chemical Company of Wyoming, Wyo., 612 P.2d 463 (1980). When doubt arises from the contract itself as to what the parties meant, there exists a question of intent which the trier of fact must resolve. Goodwin v. Upper Crust of Wyoming, Inc., Wyo., 624 P.2d 1192 (1981); Goodman v. Kelly, Wyo., 390 P.2d 244 (1964); Worland School District v. Bowman, Wyo., 445 P.2d 364 (1968).
In this case, extrinsic facts considered by the trier of fact may well reflect that the intended use of the word “prospect” precludes recovery by appellants, but a motion for summary judgment is not the vehicle in which a conflict in material facts is properly decided or by which intent is to be determined from reference to conflicting extrinsic matters.
The majority opinion notes the time lapse between the agreement, the drilling, and the claim for royalty payment, and it refers to 14 years as a time which may have been “reasonable” and which may have remained “operative and viable under an open-ended contract” and in which Blackmore may have waived “any interest he may have had.” If a contract does not specify the time for performance, a reasonable time is implied, Zitterkopf v. Roussalis, Wyo., 546 P.2d 436 (1976); that which is a reasonable time depends upon the circumstances of each case, Black & Yates v. Negros-Philippine Lumber Co., 32 Wyo. 248, 231 P. 398 (1924); and the issue is generally one of fact. Gill v. Hale & Kilburn Co., 257 F. 906 (6th Cir.1919); Shy v. Industrial Salvage Material Co., 264 Wis. 118, 58 N.W.2d 452 (1953). After considering the customs and usages in the oil and gas industry, the time span for developing the area, the interim activity before and after drilling, etc., the fact finder may conclude that a reasonable time for performance had expired in this case. But the issue should not be decided on a motion for summary judgment.
I would reverse and remand.

. In his deposition, Paul Messinger, one of appellees’ geologists, testified:
“Q. [By Mr. Massey] * * * Does the term ‘prospect,’ as such, have any particular meaning in the industry?
“A. Well, the way it was meant here, it would be a circle drawn and an area outlined, and say in this area buy leases for the prospect.”