首页> 外文期刊>Oil and Gas Reporter >Joint Operating Agreement: Non-consent Election Joint Operating Agreement: Overpayments; Recoupment
【24h】

Joint Operating Agreement: Non-consent Election Joint Operating Agreement: Overpayments; Recoupment

机译:联合经营协议:未经同意的选举联合经营协议:多付;补偿金

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Marlin is the operator of the well at issue in this case, and Lurie owns a 2.36502% non-operating net revenue working interest in the well. Lurie elects to go non-consent in a rework of the subject well, so Marlin suspends payments to Laurie until Marlin recovers 300% of the costs allocable to Lurie's working interest. After recovering the non-consent penalty, Marlin places Lurie back in pay status. However, in doing so, an error occurs in Martin's computerized accounting system which over-states Lurie's interest in the well. Rather than paying Lurie based upon his 2.36502% net revenue interest, Marlin mistakenly begins paying Lurie based on a 19.006109% net revenue interest. When Lurie receives the first monthly check that overpaid him in error, the check stub reflects the 19.006109% inflated net revenue interest. Apparently surprised by the amount, Lurie contacts Marlin personnel to inquire as to whether the amount of the check is correct, and Marlin personnel advise him that the amount is correct. Lurie does not ask Marlin about the erroneous net revenue interest percentage shown on the check stub. Marlin does not discover the error until approximate two and a half years later, resulting in overpayments totaling $163,327.96. However, since Lurie is likewise mistakenly over-billed for well expenses based on a proportionately larger working interest in the amount of an additional $27,702.61, which Lurie paid, the net effect is that Lurie is over-billed in the net amount of $135,625.35 during that period. Upon discovering the mistaken over-payments, Marlin calls Lurie and requests repayment in the amount of $135,625.35. Lurie advises Marlin that Lurie has spent the money and cannot repay it. Marlin files the present lawsuit to recoup the overpayments under the theories of unjust enrichment and breach of contract, and Marlin further seeks a declaratory judgment. Lurie asserts that the computer error was either known or should have been known by Marlin and, therefore, was not a mistake.
机译:在这种情况下,马林(Marlin)是该井的运营商,而卢里(Lurie)在该井中拥有2.36502%的营业外净收入工作权益。 Lurie选择对问题的重做表示不同意,因此Marlin暂停了向Laurie的付款,直到Marlin收回可分配给Lurie的工作权益的费用的300%。在获得了不同意的处罚后,马林将卢里(Lurie)放回了薪水状态。但是,这样做会在Martin的计算机会计系统中发生错误,从而夸大了Lurie对油井的兴趣。 Marlin错误地开始根据19.006109%的净收入利息向Lurie支付,而不是根据其2.36502%的净收入利息向Lurie支付。当Lurie收到第一笔错误支给他多付的月度支票时,该支票存根反映了19.006109%的虚增净收入利息。显然,该金额感到惊讶,Lurie与Marlin人员联系,询问支票的金额是否正确,Marlin人员告知他该金额正确。 Lurie不会向Marlin询问支票存根上显示的错误的净收入利息百分比。马林直到大约两年半之后才发现错误,导致多付款项总计163,327.96美元。但是,由于Lurie同样因较高的工作利息(按比例增加的27,702.61美元)(由Lurie支付)而错误地为油井费用开了帐单,因此净结果是,在此期间,Lurie的开帐单净额为135,625.35美元。期。在发现错误的多付款项后,Marlin致电Lurie,要求还款135,625.35美元。 Lurie通知Marlin,Lurie已花了这笔钱,无法偿还。 Marlin提起当前的诉讼,以根据不当得利和违反合同的理论来弥补多付款项,Marlin进一步寻求宣告性判决。 Lurie断言,Marlin知道或应该知道计算机错误,因此这不是一个错误。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号