Connection lost
Server error
NORTHERN INDIANA PUB. SERV. CO. v. CARBON COUNTY COAL CO. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A utility company sought to escape a long-term coal contract after market prices fell and regulators made the deal unprofitable. The court rejected its defenses of force majeure and impracticability, holding that a bad bargain, even if influenced by government action, does not excuse performance.
Legal Significance: This case provides a classic law-and-economics analysis of contract defenses, clarifying that a change in market price is a foreseeable risk allocated by a fixed-price contract. It also famously endorses the theory of efficient breach in denying specific performance where damages are adequate.
NORTHERN INDIANA PUB. SERV. CO. v. CARBON COUNTY COAL CO. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
In 1978, Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO), an electric utility, entered into a 20-year contract to purchase a fixed quantity of coal annually from Carbon County Coal Company at a base price of $24 per ton, subject to escalation clauses. By 1985, the price had risen to $44 per ton. Meanwhile, the market price for coal had fallen, and it became cheaper for NIPSCO to purchase electricity from other utilities than to generate it using Carbon County’s coal. In 1983, the Indiana Public Service Commission (PSC), NIPSCO’s regulator, issued “economy purchase orders” directing NIPSCO to acquire the least expensive electricity available and warned that NIPSCO’s management would be responsible for losses from unfavorable long-term contracts. Because of these orders, NIPSCO could not pass the high cost of Carbon County’s coal to its customers. NIPSCO then stopped accepting deliveries and filed suit, seeking a declaration that its performance was excused under the contract’s force majeure clause or the common law doctrines of frustration and impracticability. Carbon County counterclaimed for breach of contract. A jury awarded Carbon County $181 million in damages. NIPSCO appealed the judgment, and Carbon County cross-appealed the denial of specific performance.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a significant decrease in market price, precipitated by government regulatory orders that make a long-term, fixed-price contract unprofitable for a buyer, excuse the buyer’s performance under the doctrines of force majeure, commercial impracticability, or frustration of purpose?
No. The court affirmed the damage award, holding that the risk of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, s
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a significant decrease in market price, precipitated by government regulatory orders that make a long-term, fixed-price contract unprofitable for a buyer, excuse the buyer’s performance under the doctrines of force majeure, commercial impracticability, or frustration of purpose?
Conclusion
This decision strongly affirms the principle that fixed-price contracts allocate market risks, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehend
Legal Rule
A party's performance under a fixed-price contract is not excused by force Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit es
Legal Analysis
The court systematically rejected NIPSCO's defenses, applying a law-and-economics framework to risk Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ulla
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A fixed-price contract allocates the risk of market price changes. A