This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The subject of this dispute is a 160-acre tract of land located in Young County. Both P and D acquired mineral rights to various portions of the tract. In 1978 D contacted P requesting that they enter a farm-out agreement concerning a particular portion of the tract owned by P. That was rejected and D proposed that the two companies enter a joint operating agreement. They negotiated the specifics of the arrangement until 1983 without reaching an agreement. D provided P with confidential seismic services, graphics, and maps in an attempt to reach a joint operating agreement. P drilled a producing well at the location identified in the information. P then brought suit to invalidate certain leases held by D. D counterclaimed asserting the validity of the leases, or alternatively to recover under quantum meruit for the seismic services which were provided to P. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of D on its quantum meruit claim. The court of appeals reversed; there was not a factual finding that D furnished this information under such circumstances as to 'reasonably notify P that D expected to be paid for the services and assistance' which were provided.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.