Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC v. Thyssenkrupp Materials, NA
570 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58985, 66 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 427 (2008)
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a contract may be formed by conduct or electronic communication, but the existence of a binding agreement and its specific terms may be supplemented or explained by evidence of the parties' prior course of dealing and performance.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Alliance and Defendant Thyssenkrupp had a long-term supply agreement for stainless steel that expired at the end of 2006.
- By early 2007, Alliance had accumulated significant past-due balances owed to Thyssenkrupp.
- Thyssenkrupp possessed leftover steel inventory custom-made for Alliance and initiated email discussions in February and March 2007 to sell it to Alliance.
- On March 20, 2007, Alliance emailed an offer spreadsheet to Thyssenkrupp; Thyssenkrupp replied asking for a purchase order number so they could 'start shipping.'
- Alliance mailed a signed purchase order, but unlike in previous transactions, Thyssenkrupp did not sign and return it.
- Thyssenkrupp refused to ship the inventory, informing Alliance that no further material would be released until the past-due balance was paid.
- Alliance did not object to the hold on shipment or demand delivery during the weeks following the order.
- Thyssenkrupp eventually sold the inventory to a third-party broker because Alliance failed to pay its debts.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Alliance filed a diversity action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against Defendant Thyssenkrupp alleging breach of contract.
- Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing a binding contract was formed via email.
- Defendant moved to compel discovery regarding the parties' prior course of dealing.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is summary judgment appropriate for a plaintiff claiming breach of contract where the parties exchanged emails confirming an order, but the defendant subsequently refused shipment due to the plaintiff's credit delinquency consistent with their prior course of dealing?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Lynn Adelman
No, summary judgment is not appropriate because a reasonable jury could conclude either that no contract was formed or that the contract's terms permitted the seller to withhold shipment. The court reasoned that while the email exchange could technically form a contract under UCC § 2-204, the surrounding circumstances created material disputes of fact. Specifically, the parties' prior history showed that the seller typically signed purchase orders (which did not happen here) and that shipments were subject to credit approval. Furthermore, the court noted that under UCC § 2-202, evidence of 'course of dealing' is admissible to explain contract terms. Because the plaintiff did not demand shipment when it was withheld, a jury could infer that the parties understood the agreement was contingent on the plaintiff clearing its debt. Therefore, the emails were not necessarily a 'complete and exclusive' statement of the agreement, and the defendant's refusal to ship might have been a permissible term of the contract derived from their history.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the complexity of contract formation in the context of ongoing business relationships under the UCC. It highlights that an exchange of 'offer' and 'acceptance' emails does not automatically trigger summary judgment if the parties' behavior (course of performance) or history (course of dealing) suggests additional conditions, such as creditworthiness. The court emphasizes that the UCC is designed to look at the commercial reality of a transaction rather than just the four corners of a document. It validates that silence or failure to object to a shipping hold can be used as evidence regarding the parties' understanding of the contract's existence or terms.
