v. Triatlantic Ventures, Inc., 931 P.2d 122, 125 (Utah 1997). Therefore, we do not address the fourth issue in the text of the opinion. 3 . Plaintiffs’ contention that Torrey illegally discriminates is not an argument that some nonresidents are treated differently than other nonresidents. That is apparently not the case, as it seems that all nonresidents are subject to the same connection fee and rate schedule. Rather, plaintiffs maintain that the prohibited discrimination 8 S.E.2d 823 (1950); Forest City v. City of Oregon, 569 S.W.2d 330 (Mo.Ct.App.1978) (statute allowing municipalities to sell water "upon such terms and under such rules and regulations as it may deem proper” made issue one of contract); Fairway Manor, Inc. v. Board of Comm'rs, 36 Ohio St.3d 85, 521 N.E.2d 818 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Calcaterra v. City of Columbia, 315 S.C. 196,
holding that a court should allow the contractuallybargained for default rate under section 506b without examining the reasonableness of these rates provided they fall within the range of acceptable rates holding that the plaintiff utility company deserved a remedy for confiscatory rates holding that nonresident rates are matter of contract that will not be reviewed for reasonableness holding that constitutionally conferred right to operate utility without restraint or restriction by general assembly limits courts role to reviewing resident rates for reasonableness holding commission cannot authorize utility to increase rates based solely on return on stock and warning of potential danger of tying rates to one factor over which the utility exercises total control  without regard for the interests of the consumer