Dynegy Marketing and Trade v. Multiut Corp.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant breached contract calling for its payment for natural gas supplied by plaintiff. Ct. rejected defendant’s claims that plaintiff failed to establish damages through use of expert witness who examined invoices submitted by plaintiff, or that plaintiff improperly manipulated marketplace so as to affect price of natural gas in defendant’s market area. Moreover, Ct. rejected defendant's counterclaims, alleging that plaintiff breached oral agreements to offer natural gas at special price, to offer natural gas at fixed prices and to not charge defendant interest where defendant had failed to produce evidence establishing existence of mutual assent as to essential terms of any alleged oral agreement. Fact that plaintiff had failed to include interest charges in prior bills did not require different result where plaintiff at some point resumed practice of including said charges.