BRC Rubber & Plastics, Inc. v. Continental Carbon Company
804 F.3d 1229 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a contract to be considered a requirements contract under Indiana law, it must expressly obligate the buyer to purchase all of its requirements for a particular good exclusively from the seller.
Facts:
- Continental Carbon Company (Continental) sells carbon black, and BRC Rubber & Plastics (BRC) uses it to make rubber products.
- On January 1, 2010, the parties entered into an agreement stating it was their 'intent' that Continental would sell BRC 'approximately 1.8 million pounds' of carbon black annually.
- The contract included a 'Meet or Release' clause, giving Continental the right to match a better offer BRC received or release BRC from 'any further obligation'.
- The agreement also had a 'Rebate/Penalty' provision based on whether BRC purchased significantly more or less than the estimated 1.8 million pounds.
- In 2010, Continental shipped 2.6 million pounds to BRC, well over the estimated amount.
- By April 2011, Continental was experiencing high demand from all its customers.
- On April 26, 2011, BRC placed an order which Continental neither confirmed nor shipped, leading to the dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- BRC Rubber & Plastics sued Continental Carbon Company in federal district court, alleging breach and repudiation of contract.
- The district court found as a matter of law that the agreement was a requirements contract.
- After a bench trial on damages, the district court entered judgment in favor of BRC for nearly $1 million.
- Continental Carbon Company, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- BRC Rubber & Plastics, as the appellee, filed a cross-appeal regarding the exclusion of certain testimony on damages.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contract constitute an enforceable requirements contract if it does not contain language explicitly obligating the buyer to purchase all its needs for a good exclusively from the seller?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, Circuit Judge.
No, a contract is not an enforceable requirements contract if it does not explicitly obligate the buyer to purchase all its needs exclusively from the seller. The court reasoned that for an agreement to be a requirements contract, it must satisfy a three-part test: 1) obligate the buyer to buy goods, 2) obligate the buyer to buy goods exclusively from the seller, and 3) obligate the buyer to buy all of its requirements from the seller. The court found the agreement between Continental and BRC failed on these points. The 'Quantity of Material' provision, which mentioned an 'intent' to sell 'approximately 1.8 million pounds,' was merely an estimate and did not compel BRC to purchase any amount. Furthermore, the 'Meet or Release' clause was a right of first refusal on price, not a clause requiring exclusivity; it did not prevent BRC from buying from other suppliers for non-price reasons, such as diversifying its supply chain. Since BRC was not obligated to buy any carbon black from Continental, nor was it obligated to buy all its carbon black exclusively from Continental, the agreement was not a requirements contract.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict construction of requirements contracts, emphasizing that the buyer's obligation and exclusivity must be explicitly stated, not merely implied. It clarifies that features like estimated quantities, volume-based rebates, or even the use of the word 'requirements' in the text are insufficient to create such a contract without a clear, binding commitment from the buyer. This serves as a caution for contract drafters to use unambiguous language of obligation and exclusivity if a requirements contract is intended. The ruling protects sellers from being bound to supply a buyer's potentially unlimited needs when the buyer has not provided the necessary consideration of exclusivity.
Unlock the full brief for BRC Rubber & Plastics, Inc. v. Continental Carbon Company