Oglebay Norton Co. v. Armco, Inc.
556 N.E.2d 515, 52 Ohio St.3d 232, 1990 Ohio LEXIS 291 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the pricing mechanism in a long-term contract fails, a court may enforce the contract by supplying a reasonable price if it finds the parties intended to be bound despite the mechanism's failure. A court may also use its equitable powers to order specific performance, including mandating mediation, to ensure the contract's continuation.
Facts:
- In 1957, Oglebay Norton Company (Oglebay) and Armco, Inc. (Armco) entered into a long-term contract for the shipping of iron ore on the Great Lakes.
- The contract required Oglebay to maintain sufficient shipping capacity to transport Armco's iron ore requirements, up to 7.1 million gross tons per year.
- The contract specified a primary pricing mechanism based on the shipping rate published in the 'Skillings Mining Review'.
- A secondary pricing mechanism was to be used if the primary one failed, based on the rates charged by other leading independent vessel operators.
- The parties had a long-standing, close business relationship that included joint ventures, interlocking directorates, and Armco's ownership of Oglebay stock.
- After 1985, the 'Skillings Mining Review' ceased publishing the specified rate, and information on other operators' rates became unavailable, causing both pricing mechanisms to fail.
- The parties were unable to mutually agree on a shipping rate for the 1986 season.
Procedural Posture:
- A dispute arose between Oglebay and Armco, leading to litigation in an Ohio trial court.
- The trial court found that the parties intended to be bound by the contract and set a reasonable shipping rate of $6.25 per gross ton for the 1986 season.
- The trial court also exercised its equitable jurisdiction, ordering the parties to negotiate future rates and to use a mediator if they could not agree.
- Armco, as appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety.
- Armco then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
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 long-term services contract remain enforceable when its specified pricing mechanisms fail, allowing a court to supply a reasonable price and order the parties to utilize a mediator for future terms if they intended to be bound by the contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A long-term services contract remains enforceable despite the failure of its pricing mechanisms, and a court may supply a reasonable price and order mediation if the parties intended to be bound. The court found that the parties' long-standing and close business relationship, including joint ventures and stock ownership, was competent and credible evidence that they intended to be bound even if the pricing mechanisms failed. Relying on the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 33 and UCC § 2-305 by analogy, the court reasoned that when parties intend to be bound to a contract but a pricing term is left open or fails, a court can supply a 'reasonable price.' The court's role is not to frustrate the parties' intent but to fill gaps to achieve a just result. Furthermore, the court held that exercising equitable jurisdiction to order specific performance—including ongoing negotiation and mediation—was appropriate because calculating long-term monetary damages would be too speculative and difficult, and such an order facilitates the parties' ability to perform their contractual obligations.
Analysis:
This case exemplifies the modern judicial trend of upholding contracts rather than voiding them for indefiniteness, particularly in the context of long-term relational contracts. By applying UCC principles to a services contract by analogy, the court demonstrated flexibility in filling essential 'gaps' like price when the parties' underlying intent to be bound is clear. The decision empowers courts to use broad equitable remedies, such as ordering mediation, to preserve complex, ongoing commercial relationships where a simple damages award would be inadequate. This approach prioritizes the continuation of the commercial relationship over strict adherence to failed contractual terms.
