Kelsey-Hayes Co. v. Galtaco Redlaw Castings Corp.
749 F.Supp. 794 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract modification is voidable under the doctrine of economic duress if a party's assent is induced by an improper threat from the other party that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative. A threat to breach a contract to extract a higher price can constitute an improper threat.
Facts:
- In 1987, Kelsey-Hayes Company, a brake assembly manufacturer, entered into a three-year requirements contract with Galtaco Redlaw Castings Corporation, making Galtaco its sole source for certain castings at fixed prices.
- By spring 1989, Galtaco was facing severe financial losses and its board decided to cease its foundry operations.
- On May 10, 1989, Galtaco informed Kelsey-Hayes that it would stop producing castings unless Kelsey-Hayes agreed to a 30% price increase, effective May 15.
- Kelsey-Hayes determined it could not find an alternative source for the castings for 18-24 weeks, and a supply interruption would force its major customers, Ford and Chrysler, to shut down their assembly plants.
- On May 12, 1989, Kelsey-Hayes, while strenuously protesting, agreed to the price increase to ensure continued supply.
- On June 9, 1989, Galtaco demanded a second 30% price increase, stating it was necessary to continue operating solely for Kelsey-Hayes's benefit, as its other customers had secured alternative suppliers.
- Still unable to secure another source for castings, Kelsey-Hayes again agreed to the additional price hike.
- After Galtaco made its final shipment on August 30, 1989, Kelsey-Hayes refused to pay for the final 84 shipments, the value of which approximated the total price increase from the 1989 agreements.
Procedural Posture:
- Kelsey-Hayes (Plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Galtaco (Defendant) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for breach of contract.
- Kelsey-Hayes sought a declaratory judgment that the 1989 price modification agreements were voidable due to duress.
- Galtaco filed a counterclaim seeking payment for unpaid shipments under the terms of the 1989 agreements.
- Galtaco moved for summary judgment on both Kelsey-Hayes's claims and its own counterclaim.
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 party's agreement to a contract modification constitute economic duress, rendering the modification voidable, when that party agrees under protest to a price increase in response to the other party's threat to breach an existing contract, and the threatened breach would cause a catastrophic shutdown of the party's and its customers' operations because no alternative supplier is available?
Opinions:
Majority - Cohn, District Judge
Yes, a party's agreement to a contract modification is voidable under economic duress if it was induced by a wrongful threat leaving no reasonable alternative. The court reasoned that the modern doctrine of economic duress does not require an illegal threat, merely a wrongful one, and a threat to breach a contract to extract a modification is considered wrongful. Kelsey-Hayes presented sufficient evidence that Galtaco made such a threat. Furthermore, Kelsey-Hayes presented a triable issue of fact that it had no reasonable alternative but to acquiesce, as the threatened breach would have shut down its customers' plants, causing catastrophic reputational and financial damage. The normal legal remedy of suing for breach would have been inadequate to prevent this immediate harm. The court also held that Kelsey-Hayes's vigorous protests put Galtaco on notice that the assent was not voluntary, thereby preserving the duress claim. Finally, the court rejected Galtaco's argument that the UCC's good faith provision supplants the common law doctrine of duress, noting that the UCC explicitly supplements, rather than replaces, such common law principles.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear application of the modern doctrine of economic duress in a commercial setting governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The decision is significant for affirming that a threat to breach a contract can be the 'wrongful act' required for a duress claim, shifting the focus from the legality of the threat to its coercive impact. It highlights the importance of the 'no reasonable alternative' element, particularly within just-in-time supply chains where a supplier's breach can have immediate and catastrophic consequences that a lawsuit for damages cannot adequately remedy. The opinion clarifies that the UCC's good faith requirement for modifications and the common law doctrine of duress operate concurrently, providing separate but related grounds for challenging coerced contract modifications.
Unlock the full brief for Kelsey-Hayes Co. v. Galtaco Redlaw Castings Corp.