|
|
Enron Mail |
I know there is some case law out there on contracts being voided because
they are "unconscionable." There are several examples in consumer law and employment law, in which one contracting party is a corporation and the other is a West Palm Beach voter. However, if my memory serves me correctly, none of them involve contracts between 2 sophisticated business entities such as TW and Sempra or PG&E. Absent evidence of fraud, courts uphold bargains struck at arms length. Kathy, I'd be happy to take the oars on this but if you've already done some looking, please let me know if you've found anything. From: Drew Fossum 11/20/2000 04:44 PM To: Susan Scott/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Kathy Ringblom/ET&S/Enron@ENRON cc: Subject: gouging Stuck on the phone so I thought I'd email you. Stan has asked Mike Moran if TW has any potential exposure on the high value transport deals under "anti gouging" statutes or common law. You know, the laws that say you can't charge $100 per sheet of plywood during a hurricane or $50 for a bucket of water during a drought. I think we need to research two things: 1. are there any such laws applicable to our business? (Cal. state law would probably be the best place to start) 2. could the political/regulatory fight in Cal about power and gas prices ever expand all the way to our transport pricing? I.e., if the CPUC whacks the power sellers for taking unfair advantage of their monopoly power, its not a big leap for the CPUC or FERC or even U.S. congress to whack gas sellers for jacking prices up to $14/MMBtu, as happened on Friday. If that happens, its just another small jump to whack us for charging $1 for transport, or so the logic goes. I'd like to hear preliminary views by 8:30 Monday am so I can talk to Mike before Stan's staff meeting (no written memo necessary). Based on that prelim. research, we can decide what else need s to be done. Thanks df
|