Karl Wendt Farm Equipment Co. v. International Harvester Co.
931 F.2d 1112 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party's performance under a contract is not excused under the doctrine of impracticability due to a severe market downturn that makes performance unprofitable, even if that downturn results in substantial financial losses.
Facts:
- In the fall of 1974, Karl Wendt Farm Equipment Company ('Wendt') and International Harvester Company ('IH') entered into a 'Dealer Sales and Service Agreement', establishing Wendt as an IH dealer in Marlette, Michigan.
- A dramatic recession occurred in the farm equipment market, causing IH to suffer substantial financial losses, reportedly over $2 billion in four years.
- In response to its losses, IH negotiated an agreement to sell its farm equipment division to J.I. Case Co. and Tenneco Inc. ('Case/Tenneco').
- The asset sale agreement gave Case/Tenneco 'access' to IH's dealer network but did not require it to assume the existing franchise agreements.
- Marlette, Michigan was a 'conflicted area' where both a Case and an IH dealership existed.
- Case/Tenneco chose not to offer a new franchise agreement to Wendt, which resulted in the termination of Wendt's dealership.
Procedural Posture:
- Wendt sued IH for breach of contract in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction.
- IH filed a counter-claim against Wendt for outstanding debts on equipment and parts.
- At trial, the district court allowed IH's affirmative defense of impracticability of performance to be presented to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action for Wendt, finding in favor of IH on the breach of contract claim.
- The district court denied Wendt’s motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (J.N.O.V.) and for a new trial.
- The district court granted a directed verdict for Wendt on IH's other affirmative defenses, including frustration of purpose and an interpretation of a contract clause.
- Wendt, as appellant, appealed the denial of its J.N.O.V. motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- IH, as cross-appellant, appealed the district court’s directed verdicts on its other defenses.
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 severe and unforeseen downturn in the market, resulting in substantial financial losses for a manufacturer, constitute impracticability sufficient to excuse its performance of dealer franchise agreements under Michigan law?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
No. A severe market downturn making performance unprofitable does not legally excuse performance under the doctrine of impracticability. The continuation of existing market conditions is not a basic assumption on which contracts are formed; rather, the risk of market shifts is precisely what fixed-price contracts are intended to cover. Michigan law has consistently held that economic unprofitableness is not the equivalent of impossibility or impracticability, even when losses are substantial. Applying the defense here would allow IH to gain a windfall at the dealers' expense, as IH chose its remedy—selling its assets—and cannot now claim its contractual duties are discharged. The court also rejected IH's defenses of frustration of purpose and its interpretation of the contract's termination clauses, holding that 'mutual profitability' is not the primary purpose of a contract and that specific termination clauses must be followed.
Dissenting - Ryan, J.
Yes. The question of whether the economic circumstances were extreme enough to constitute impracticability was a question of fact that was properly submitted to the jury. The evidence showed a sudden, massive, and near-total collapse of the farm equipment industry, which resulted in over $2 billion in losses for IH. Given these catastrophic circumstances, reasonable people could differ as to whether the non-occurrence of such a collapse was a basic assumption of the contract. The majority improperly substitutes its own factual assessment for that of the jury, whose verdict should not have been disturbed.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the high legal threshold required to successfully claim discharge of contractual duties through the doctrine of impracticability based on economic hardship. It establishes that even catastrophic market shifts and severe financial losses are treated as foreseeable business risks allocated by the contract, not as supervening events that excuse performance. The ruling significantly limits the ability of manufacturers or suppliers to unilaterally abandon franchise or distribution agreements when a market becomes unprofitable, thereby strengthening the contractual protections for dealers and franchisees. Future litigants arguing for impracticability due to economic reasons will face a significant precedential hurdle, pushing parties towards negotiated terminations as specified in their agreements.
