Carpenter Paper Co. v. Kearney Hub Publishing Co.
163 Neb. 145, 1956 Neb. LEXIS 117, 78 N.W.2d 80 (1956)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract modification is not voidable under the doctrine of economic duress or business compulsion if the demanding party is acting within its legal rights and the resulting agreement is not unjust, unconscionable, or illegal, even if the other party agrees due to a lack of other practical options.
Facts:
- In 1942, Carpenter Paper Company (Carpenter) and Kearney Hub Publishing Company (Kearney Hub) entered into a mill brokerage contract for Carpenter to supply Kearney Hub's newsprint requirements at the mill price.
- In 1943, the Kearney Hub corporation was dissolved and became a partnership, which continued to operate under the 1942 contract.
- By 1947, newsprint was in extremely short supply, and Carpenter was Kearney Hub's only practical source.
- In November 1947, due to a change in policy with its own supplier, Carpenter informed Kearney Hub that the 1942 brokerage contract would be canceled and that future sales would be on a direct basis at a price of $5 per ton above the mill price.
- An agent for Kearney Hub, Ormand P. Hill, agreed to the new arrangement, stating he had no other choice and had to have newsprint to continue publishing.
- From January 1, 1948, until 1954, Kearney Hub purchased newsprint from Carpenter under these new terms, which later included a price increase to $6 per ton above the mill price in 1952.
- During this period, Kearney Hub continuously sought an alternative supply and eventually secured a direct mill contract with another company that became effective in 1954.
- On March 2, 1954, Carpenter delivered a carload of newsprint to Kearney Hub, for which Kearney Hub disputed the price, leading to the lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Carpenter Paper Company sued Kearney Hub Publishing Company in the district court for Buffalo County, Nebraska, for the price of a newsprint shipment.
- Kearney Hub filed a counter-claim, asserting it was entitled to recover for years of overcharges based on a contract modification made under duress.
- The parties waived a jury, and a bench trial was conducted.
- The trial court dismissed Carpenter's petition and rendered judgment for Kearney Hub on its counter-claim for $1,364.50.
- Carpenter Paper Company's motion for a new trial was overruled.
- Carpenter Paper Company, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
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 a contract modification, which increases the price of goods, voidable for business compulsion when one party agrees to the new terms because the other party is its only practical source of supply in a tight market?
Opinions:
Majority - Wenke, J.
No. An agreement made under business pressure is not voidable for duress where the party exerting the pressure has a legal right to do so and the resulting terms are not unjust or unconscionable. The court reasoned that while parties can mutually agree to cancel or modify a contract, such a modification could be voidable if entered into under duress. The essence of business compulsion is the surrender to unlawful or unconscionable demands, not lawful ones. Here, Carpenter was not legally obligated to continue the old contract indefinitely and had a legal right to change its business model and pricing. Although Kearney Hub was in a difficult position due to the newsprint shortage, Carpenter did not threaten to do anything unlawful. The price increase of approximately 4.6% was not found to be unjust or unconscionable given the rising costs of doing business. Therefore, Kearney Hub's agreement to the new terms was a valid contract modification, not a product of voidable business compulsion.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the limits of the economic duress doctrine, often termed 'business compulsion'. The court establishes that leveraging a superior bargaining position created by market conditions does not, by itself, constitute duress. The decision sets a precedent that for a contract to be voidable, the pressure applied must be wrongful, illegal, or result in an unconscionable outcome. This holding protects parties' rights to renegotiate contracts based on changing economic realities and prevents the duress doctrine from being used to escape deals that are merely disadvantageous or the result of a hard bargain.
