Barman

Barman v. Union Oil Co.

Good Law
50 F. App'x 824
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 26, 2002No. 01-35497, 01-35615; D.C. No. CV-97-00563-ASCalifornia3,347 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

This diversity action arises out of Plaintiff Robert Barman’s efforts to buy four gasoline stations from Defendant Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) and to become a marketer of Unocal-branded gasoline. Plaintiff alleges that the parties entered into a Real Property/Marketer Agreement (Agreement) for those purposes, but that Unocal breached that Agreement. He also alleges tort and contract claims and violations of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) arising from Unocal’s sale of its interests in Oregon to Defendant Tosco Corporation (Tosco). A jury assessed Plaintiffs damages at $7,125,000. Plaintiff and Unocal both appeal a number of issues. In resolving them, we will state only those facts necessary to explain our reasons, because the parties are familiar with the extensive record.

*827 A. Enforceability of the Agreement Between Plaintiff and Unocal

Unocal argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it entered into an enforceable contract with Plaintiff. It contends that the parties failed to agree on material terms and that Oregon’s Statute of Frauds renders unenforceable any oral agreement between the parties. The district…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.