James J. Kilpatrick's piece ''Pennzoil and the Judge'' {op-ed, July 30} contains some major inaccuracies:

He says there was no binding contract; three courts have ruled otherwise.

He says Pennzoil relied on a handshake; in fact, Pennzoil relied on written documents signed by the holders of a majority of Getty Oil shares.

He says ''some of the parties'' reached an agreement; in fact, all the concerned parties, including the Getty board, agreed to accept the Pennzoil proposal, and Getty Oil publicly announced the agreement in a broadly distributed news release.

He says ''the U.S. Supreme Court refused to get involved.'' On the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously voted, 9 to 0, to require Texaco to pursue the remedies available to it in the state courts, rather than its attempted end run around the judicial system.

He totally misunderstands how the damages were computed, calling them ''hypothetical.'' On the contrary, damages were computed by an outside expert who used three different methods routinely employed in the oil industry. All three methods produced damages in the $6 billion to $8 billion range. They represent compensation for the loss Pennzoil actually suffered by Texaco's interference, which has been declared unlawful by judge and jury.

TERRY HEMEYER Vice President, Public Affairs Pennzoil Company Houston