Leibel v. Raynor Manufacturing Co.
571 S.W.2d 640 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-309, an oral distributorship agreement for the sale of goods that is indefinite in duration may be terminated at will by either party, but only upon the receipt of reasonable notification by the other party.
Facts:
- On or about March 1, 1974, Leibel and Raynor Manufacturing Co. entered into an oral agreement making Leibel the exclusive dealer-distributor for Raynor's garage doors in a 50-mile radius of Lexington, Kentucky.
- Under the agreement, Raynor would sell its products to Leibel at the factory distributor price, and Leibel agreed to sell, install, and service Raynor products exclusively.
- In reliance on this agreement, Leibel borrowed substantial sums of money for capital expenditures, including purchasing inventory, renting office and storage space, hiring personnel, and acquiring a service truck and equipment.
- On or about June 30, 1976, after two years of operation, Raynor notified Leibel that their relationship was terminated, effective that same day.
- Raynor also informed Leibel that it had established a new dealer-distributor, Helton Overhead Door Sales, for the territory.
Procedural Posture:
- Leibel filed a three-count complaint against Raynor Manufacturing Co. in a Kentucky circuit court (trial court).
- Raynor filed a motion for summary judgment on Count I, arguing the oral agreement was terminable at will without any requirement for reasonable notice.
- The circuit court granted Raynor's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Count I of the complaint.
- The trial court's dismissal was deemed a final, appealable judgment.
- Leibel (appellant) appealed the summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, the intermediate appellate court.
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 Uniform Commercial Code require a party to provide reasonable notification before terminating an oral, at-will distributorship agreement for the sale of goods?
Opinions:
Majority - Howerton, J.
Yes. Reasonable notification is required to terminate an on-going oral agreement for the sale of goods where the parties have a manufacturer-supplier and dealer-distributor relationship. The court reasoned first that a distributorship agreement, where the primary essence is the sale of goods, is governed by Article II of the Uniform Commercial Code. It distinguished this from a personal services contract. The court then applied UCC § 2-309 (KRS 355.2-309), which governs contracts of indefinite duration. While subsection (2) allows for termination at any time, subsection (3) explicitly requires that 'reasonable notification be received by the other party.' The court rejected the trial court's interpretation that this merely meant actual notice, clarifying that 'reasonable notification' relates to the timing and circumstances of the notice, which must provide the other party a reasonable time to seek a substitute arrangement, consistent with principles of good faith and sound commercial practice.
Analysis:
This decision formally brings distributorship and franchise agreements under the purview of UCC Article 2, provided the essence of the contract is the sale of goods. It establishes a significant protection for franchisees and distributors in at-will relationships by imposing a duty of reasonable notification before termination. This prevents manufacturers from abruptly ending relationships, thereby safeguarding the distributor's reliance interest and capital investment. The ruling ensures that termination is conducted in good faith, allowing the terminated party a fair opportunity to mitigate damages by selling inventory or finding alternative business arrangements.
Unlock the full brief for Leibel v. Raynor Manufacturing Co.