Modernizing the Property Laws That Bind Us: Challenging Traditional Property Law Concepts Unsuited to the Realities of the Oil and Gas Industry

Authors

  • Alicia K. Quesnel

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29173/alr497

Keywords:

Energy Law, Petroleum Law

Abstract

Practitioners deal primarily with two different methods of interpretation in oil and gas cases: the strict method of interpretation and the liberal method of interpretation. However, in recent decisions such as Bank of Montreal v. Dynex Petroleum and Taylor v. Scurry-Rainbow Oil, the courts refused to apply the common law, instead upholding long-standing industry practices that could not be easily classified into proper legal categories. Following a review of the strict interpretation and liberal interpretation methodologies currently used in interpreting oil and gas cases, this article looks more closely at the method of interpretation used by the courts in Dynex and Taylor. This method of interpretation will be referred to as the challenging method of interpretation. The article discusses the key analytical aspects of the challenging method interpretation, and examines its possible impact on the existing methods of interpretation used in oil and gas cases. Finally, this article concludes with some thoughts about the implications of these cases on oil and gas law.

Downloads

Issue

Vol 41, No 1: Petroleum Law Edition

Section

Articles

License

For Editions following and including Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License

For Editions prior to Volume 61 No. 1, the following applies.

Author(s) retain original copyright in the substantive content of the titled work, subject to the following rights that are granted indefinitely:

  1. Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to produce, publish, disseminate, and distribute the titled work in electronic format to online database services, including, but not limited to: LexisNexis, QuickLaw, HeinOnline, and EBSCO;
  2. Author(s) grant the Alberta Law Review permission to post the titled work on the Alberta Law Review website and/or related websites.
  3. Author(s) agree that the titled work may be used for educational or instructional purposes and/or in educational or instructional materials. The author(s) acknowledge that the titled work is subject to other such "fair dealing" provisions and applicable legislation.
  4. Author(s) grant a limited license to those accessing the titled work from an electronic database or an Alberta Law Review website to download the titled work onto their computer and to print a copy for their own personal, non-commercial use, subject to proper attribution.

To use the journal's content elsewhere, permission must be obtained from the author(s) and the Alberta Law Review.