Industrial Representatives, Inc. v. Cp Clare Corporation
74 F.3d 128, 1996 WL 1836, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 70 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in Illinois contract law does not override express contractual terms that allocate risks and opportunities upon termination, particularly in at-will sales agency agreements that specify post-termination compensation.
Facts:
- In April 1991, CP Clare Corporation (a manufacturer of electrical components) engaged Industrial Representatives, Inc. (IRI) to solicit orders for its products in Northern Illinois and Eastern Wisconsin.
- The contract between CP Clare and IRI did not have a fixed term and allowed either party to terminate the agreement with 30 days' notice after an initial one-year period.
- The contract explicitly stated that CP Clare would pay IRI commissions for all products ordered before the termination date and delivered within 90 days following the terminal date.
- By fall 1994, IRI had significantly increased CP Clare's sales in the assigned territory, reaching over $6 million annually, which was a tenfold increase since IRI's engagement.
- CP Clare decided to bring its sales promotion in-house and sent IRI a letter terminating its role effective the end of October 1994, providing 42 days' notice.
- CP Clare adhered to the contract terms by paying IRI commissions for all products ordered before termination and delivered within the subsequent 90-day period.
- IRI believed that it had not been adequately compensated for its efforts in boosting CP Clare’s sales and that CP Clare was opportunistically appropriating the future value of the goodwill IRI had created.
Procedural Posture:
- Industrial Representatives, Inc. (IRI) filed a lawsuit against CP Clare Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under diversity jurisdiction, seeking commissions for products delivered through 1999 and punitive damages.
- The district court dismissed IRI's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
- IRI, as the appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
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 the implied duty of good faith prevent a principal from terminating an at-will sales agency contract and retaining the future value of goodwill created by the agent, when the contract explicitly provides for a specific post-termination commission period?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge
No, the implied duty of good faith does not prevent a principal from terminating an at-will sales agency contract and retaining the future value of goodwill when the contract explicitly provides for a specific post-termination commission period. The court affirmed the dismissal of IRI's complaint, holding that the contract explicitly addressed the terms of termination and post-termination compensation (90 days of commissions). Under Illinois law, contracts allocate risks and opportunities, and courts will generally respect express contractual provisions in at-will arrangements. The court clarified that 'opportunism' typically refers to efforts to exploit sunk costs during performance or to take advantage of unforeseen circumstances not covered by the contract. In this case, neither type of opportunism occurred because the parties, as sophisticated professionals, had expressly bargained for and agreed to the terms of post-termination compensation. Allowing a court to intervene and rewrite the contract to provide additional post-termination compensation would destabilize contract law and undermine the parties' agreed-upon allocation of risks.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the principle of freedom of contract, particularly in commercial relationships governed by Illinois law. It clarifies that the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing is not a vehicle for courts to rewrite express contractual terms that clearly allocate risks and benefits upon termination, even when one party might feel disadvantaged by the termination of a highly successful relationship. The ruling limits the application of 'opportunism' claims to specific scenarios involving exploitation of sunk costs during performance or unforeseen circumstances, thereby preventing its use to challenge agreed-upon termination clauses. It signals judicial reluctance to interfere with sophisticated parties' explicit agreements, emphasizing predictability and stability in contractual obligations.
