My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1999-04-01_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1999-04-01_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2021 7:17:41 PM
Creation date
5/3/2012 9:33:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
4/1/1999
Doc Name
DMG motion to dismiss certain claims
From
US District Court
To
Mid-Continent Resources, Inc. & DMG
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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).
View images
View plain text
for relief fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted since the Liquidation Plan is not a <br /> contract, and the claim falls within those barred by the CGIA. However, MCR's fourth claim <br /> fails for other reasons as well. <br /> Assuming arguendo that the Liquidation Plan is a contract, MCR will no doubt cite to <br /> Amoco Oil Co. v. Ervin, 908 P.2d 493, 498 (Colo. 1995) to support its allegation that every <br /> contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, Amoco Oil in <br /> turn cites to C.R.S. § 4-1-203, Colorado's codification of the Uniform Commercial Code, which <br /> says "[e]very contract or duty within this title imposes an obligation of good faith in its <br /> performance or enforcement" (emphasis added). "This title" is Title 4, C.R.S., the U.C.C. <br /> According to MCR,the Liquidation Plan is a contract pursuant to its bankruptcy proceeding. <br /> Amended Third Party Complaint, ¶ 14. Under no circumstances would a bankruptcy contract be <br /> governed by the U.C.C. C.R.S. § 4-1-102(2)(a). Therefore, even if the Liquidation Plan is a <br /> contract it would not necessarily contain an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing <br /> because it is not within the scope of the U.C.C., as contemplated by Amoco Oil. Therefore, <br /> MCR's fourth claim for relief should be dismissed. <br /> The Division denies that the Liquidation Plan is a contract. If this court should decide <br /> both that the Liquidation Plan constitutes a contract, and that the Liquidation Plan contains an <br /> implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1), dismissal is still warranted. A <br /> breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing gives rise to tort liability. Vaughan v. <br /> McMinn, 945 P.2d 404, 406 (Colo. 1996); see also Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio, 706 P.2d 1258, <br /> 1273-74 (Colo. 1985); Farmers Group, Inc. v. Trimble, 691 P.2d 1138, 1141-42 (Colo. 1984). <br /> Only where the contract contains an express covenant of good faith and fair dealing is the claim <br /> 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.