Smith v. Gaubert Oil Co.

Fifth Circuit

Smith v. Gaubert Oil Co.

169 F. App'x 920

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 2006

Docket05-30800

StatusUnpublished

This text of 169 F. App'x 920 (Smith v. Gaubert Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Gaubert Oil Co., 169 F. App'x 920 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

After study of the briefs and argument of the parties, we are convinced that the district court did not err in rejecting the application of maritime law and applying Louisiana law in the interpretation of the relevant contract. We reach this conclusion because it is clear, and indeed undisputed, that the Master Service Contract is not a maritime contract. Even when the instant purchase order is considered with that contract, we are fully convinced that the delivery of the oil by barge was incidental to the sale of the oil. See Lucky-Goldstar, Int’l (America) Inc. v. Phibro Energy Int’l, Ltd., 958 F.2d 58, 59-60 (5th Cir.1992). To the extent that maritime services were performed under the contract, those services were neither predominant nor separable from the non-maritime obligation. Id. Consequently, maritime law does not apply to the contract. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

After study of the briefs and argument of the parties, we are convinced that the district court did not err in rejecting the application of maritime law and applying Louisiana law in the interpretation of the relevant contract. We reach this conclusion because it is clear, and indeed undisputed, that the Master Service Contract is not a maritime contract. Even when the instant purchase order is considered with that contract, we are fully convinced that the delivery of the oil by barge was incidental to the sale of the oil. See Lucky-Goldstar, Int’l (America) Inc. v. Phibro Energy Int’l, Ltd., 958 F.2d 58, 59-60 (5th Cir.1992). To the extent that maritime services were performed under the contract, those services were neither predominant nor separable from the non-maritime obligation. Id. Consequently, maritime law does not apply to the contract. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 F. App'x 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-gaubert-oil-co-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack