AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• MB Oil Ltd., Co. (Plaintiff), a wholesale fuel distributor, entered into a contract with the City of Albuquerque (Defendant) to be the primary supplier of certain fuels. The contract allowed for termination for default or convenience. Issues arose when Plaintiff was unable to meet the City's fuel delivery requirements, leading to the City terminating the contract. Plaintiff then sued, alleging wrongful termination and seeking damages for lost anticipatory profits (paras 3-9).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the City wrongfully terminated the contract, both for default and for convenience, and sought damages for anticipatory profits and preparatory damages (paras 8-10).
• Defendant: Contended that the contract's termination was lawful under the terms agreed upon, specifically invoking the termination for convenience clause (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the City wrongfully terminated the contract for default or for convenience (para 1).
• Whether Plaintiff is entitled to damages for anticipatory profits and preparatory damages (para 10).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the City (para 27).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, J. (JAMES J. WECHSLER, J., and RODERICK T. KENNEDY, J., concurring):
  The Court found that the City lawfully terminated the contract under the termination for convenience clause, which allowed termination without fault or breach by the other party. The Court emphasized that such clauses are standard in government contracts to allow flexibility in changing operational needs. The Court also noted that the Plaintiff failed to meet the City's fuel delivery requirements, which could have justified termination for default. The Court concluded that the termination for convenience was not a breach of contract or of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and thus, Plaintiff was not entitled to damages for anticipatory profits (paras 11-26).