Sohio Petroleum Co. et al. v. Weyburn Security Co. Ltd.

Sohio Petroleum Co. et al. v. Weyburn Security Co. Ltd.

The lease terminated at the end of the 10-year primary term because there was no production during that term, and estoppel was not proved because Sohio's actions resulted from a mutual mistake rather than representations or conduct by the respondent that induced reliance; therefore the respondent was not precluded from asserting termination and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[1971] SCR 81
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Sohio Petroleum Company et al.; Respondent/plaintiff: Weyburn Security Company Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 June 1970
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Estoppel, Petroleum and Natural Gas Lease, Lease Termination, Promissory Estoppel, Mistake, Accounting for Production
Source Language
English
Evidence Property Oil and Gas Contract Equity Estoppel Petroleum and Natural Gas Lease Lease Termination +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sohio Petroleum Company et al.

Appellant/defendant

Weyburn Security Company Limited

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petroleum and natural gas lease terminated for failure to obtain production within the 10-year primary term
  2. 2 Whether the lessor was estopped by words or conduct from denying the validity of the lease
  3. 3 Whether representations or conduct after termination can revive or enforce a terminated lease absent fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The lease terminated at the end of the 10-year primary term because there was no production during that term, and estoppel was not proved because Sohio's actions resulted from a mutual mistake rather than representations or conduct by the respondent that induced reliance; therefore the respondent was not precluded from asserting termination and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Appellants ordered to account to respondent for benefits from production received after service of the writ of summons on the appellants.