My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP12578
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
WSP12578
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:39 PM
Creation date
8/1/2007 8:43:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.300.40.A
Description
Colorado River Basin - Legislation-Law - Compacts - Colorado River Compact
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
7/1/1986
Author
John U Carlson - Alan E Boles Jr
Title
Contrary Views of the Law of the Colorado River - An Examination of Rivalries Between the Upper and Lower Basins - John U Carlson and Alan E Boles Jr - 07-01-86
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />001474 <br /> <br />have heard engineers says that it takes a 50 year <br />record to reveal a safe extreme minimum, or <br />likewise a safe extreme maximum, but that for <br />general calculation of averages a 20 year record <br />was safe.132 <br /> <br />c. Value of Remedy <br /> <br />But, assuming that the Upper Basin could satisfy the <br /> <br />elements of an action for rescission, is it an attractive <br /> <br />remedy for the Upper states? It would seem not to be. The <br />Lower Basin generally has established both larger and earlier <br /> <br />uses of Colorado River water than the Upper. If the Compact <br />were voided and the River equitably apportioned, the northern <br /> <br />states would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. <br />3. Reformation of the Compact <br /> <br />If feasible, courts prefer to reform a contract, in lieu <br /> <br />of rescinding it, due to a mutual mistake. Reformation of <br /> <br />the Compact would clearly be a more satisfactory remedy for <br />the Upper Basin. <br /> <br />Where a writing that evidences or embodies an <br />agreement in whole or in part fails to express the <br />agreement because of a mistake of both parties as <br />to the contents or effect of the writing, the court <br />may at the request of a party reform the writing to <br />express the agreement, except to the extent that <br />rights of third parties such as good faith pur- <br />chasers for value will be unfairly affected. <br /> <br />RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS ~155. <br /> <br />"The province of <br /> <br />reformation is to make a writing express the agreement that <br /> <br />the parties intended it should." Id. at comment a. <br /> <br />Clear <br /> <br />and convincing evidence of the intended agreement and the <br /> <br />mistake is usually required. See e.g. Evans v. Hartford Life <br /> <br />Ins. Co., 704 F.2d 1177 (lOth Cir. 1983). <br /> <br />-49- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.