In a $1975$ contract, Eureka was given the exclusive right to sell spring water and other products under the Ozarka trade name in $60$ Oklahoma counties in exchange for $$9\mathrm{.}000$ paid to Arrowhead, which owned the trade name. In $1987,$ Arrowhead was acquired by Perrier Group of America, which was subsequently purchased in $1992$ by Nestle, making Nestle the owner of the trade name Ozarka. Nestle then began delivering spring water under the Ozarka name within Eureka's territorial claim. In $1997,$ this became known to Eureka, and Nestle agreed to pay Eureka royalties of $30$ cents a case and $50$ cents a case for bulk purchases. Eureka would receive from Nestle $67$ checks totaling about $$2\mathrm{.}5$ million over the next $10$ years. In late $2003,$ Nestle unilaterally reduced the payment to $25$ cents a case. Eureka invoiced Nestle for the difference but was never paid. On October $15,2007,$ Eureka received a letter which stated that Nestle would no longer pay royalties. Who should prevail and why? $[$Eureka Water Company v$.$ Nestle Waters North America, Inc. U$.$S$.$ Court of Appeals for the $10$th Circuit $690$ F$\mathrm{.}3$d $1139,2012$ U$.$S$.$ App. LEXIS $16149,78$ U$.$C$.$C$.$ Rep. Serv. $2$d $($Callaghan$)363($Aug$.3.2012,$ Filed$)]$