After study of the briefs and argument of the parties, we are convinced that the district court did not err in rejecting the application of maritime law and applying Louisiana law in the interpretation of the relevant contract. We reach this conclusion because it is clear, and indeed undisputed, that the Master Service Contract is not a maritime contract. Even when the instant purchase order is considered with that contract, we are fully convinced that the delivery of the oil by barge was incidental to the sale of the oil. See Lucky-Goldstar, Int’l (America) Inc. v. Phibro Energy Int’l, Ltd., 958 F.2d 58, 59-60 (5th Cir. 1992). To the extent that maritime services were performed under the contract, those services were neither predominant nor separable from the non-maritime obligation. Id. Consequently, maritime law does not apply to the contract. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.