The overview, in this case, extends out of the 1938 amendment regarding tribe royalties. A coal lease involving the Peabody Coal Company and the Navajo Nation (United States v. Navajo Nation). Navajo Nation is a federally recognized Indian tribe within the United States. Better known as the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 (IMLA) (United States v. Navajo Nation). The Secretary of the Interior approved an amendment to the lease which allows Indian tribes to lease mining rights on their tribal land to private companies. The Navajo tribe in 1964 signed a lease consenting Peabody to mine on the tribe 's land. The contract with the predecessor of Peabody Coal Company stated for every ton of coal mined from the land the Navajo tribe would receive in return royalties of 37.5 cents (United States v. Navajo Nation). After 20 years, the agreement had the possibility of renegotiation. By 1977 the required minimum was set at 12.5% by Congress after the Navajo tribe requested new rates to be established by the Secretary and the Director of Bureau of Indian Affairs (Perdue, 2009). The Peabody Coal Company agreed to this reduced percentage moving forward. In …show more content…
Contractually from a professional or setting a personal contract that uses the word trust, one might be expecting that textual term to be dispositive. Understanding fiduciary responsibility in contracts, deed transfer, and legal rights in a professional setting is critical (The United States v. Navajo Nation). With that said understanding that not always does history create an enforceable fiduciary responsibility, but only establishes a frame for standard interpretation of the common law should trust be breached. A full understanding key components of employment law, labor law, environmental law, and civil rights laws preventing corruption and eliminating legal consequences (Nelson,