Oscar Schlegel Manufacturing Co. v. Peter Cooper's Glue Factory
132 N.E. 148, 24 A.L.R. 1348, 231 N.Y. 459 (1921)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a requirements contract to be enforceable, there must be mutuality of obligation, meaning both parties are bound to perform. A buyer's promise to purchase its 'requirements' is illusory and lacks consideration if the buyer is a jobber with no established business needs and is not obligated to purchase exclusively from the seller, as there is no objective standard to determine the quantity.
Facts:
- On December 9, 1915, Peter Cooper's Glue Factory sent a letter to Oscar Schlegel Manufacturing Company proposing to sell Schlegel its 'requirements' of 'Special BB' glue for the year 1916 at nine cents per pound.
- Schlegel's president accepted the proposal by writing 'Accepted' on the letter and returning it to the factory.
- Schlegel was a jobber that resold goods, including glue, to its customers; it did not manufacture products or use the glue in its own operations.
- At the time of the agreement, Schlegel was not under any pre-existing contracts to supply glue to third parties.
- The agreement did not obligate Schlegel to purchase exclusively from Peter Cooper's Glue Factory, nor did it require Schlegel to make any efforts to sell the glue.
- During 1916, the market price of glue rose significantly from nine cents to twenty-four cents per pound.
- As the market price for glue increased, Schlegel substantially increased the quantity of glue it ordered from the factory.
- Peter Cooper's Glue Factory eventually refused to make certain deliveries requested by Schlegel.
Procedural Posture:
- Oscar Schlegel Manufacturing Company sued Peter Cooper's Glue Factory in a New York trial court for alleged breach of contract.
- The case was tried before a judge without a jury, who rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff, Schlegel.
- The defendant, Peter Cooper's Glue Factory, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Department.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment, with two justices dissenting.
- Peter Cooper's Glue Factory then appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest 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 an agreement where a seller promises to supply a buyer's 'requirements' for a product lack consideration and mutuality when the buyer is a jobber who makes no express promise to purchase any quantity, is not required to purchase exclusively from the seller, and has no established business that would allow for a reasonable estimation of its needs?
Opinions:
Majority - McLaughlin, J.
Yes. The alleged contract is invalid because it lacks consideration and mutuality of obligation. The court reasoned that for a contract to be valid, both parties must be bound by mutual promises. Here, Schlegel made no promise; it was not obligated to order any glue, to try to sell any glue, or to refrain from selling competing glues. Its only commitment was to pay for glue if it chose to order it, making its promise illusory. The court distinguished this case from valid requirements contracts where the quantity, though indefinite, can be determined with approximate accuracy based on a known standard, such as the needs of an established manufacturing business. Since Schlegel was a jobber with no fixed needs, its 'requirements' were dependent only on its will and the fluctuations of the market, not on any genuine business necessity. Because the factory could not have sued Schlegel for failing to place orders, the agreement was unenforceable against either party.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the doctrine of mutuality of obligation within requirements contracts. It establishes that the term 'requirements' is not, by itself, sufficient to create an enforceable promise; there must be an objective basis for determining what those requirements are, such as the needs of an ongoing business. The ruling narrows the applicability of requirements contracts, particularly for resellers or jobbers, and emphasizes that courts will not enforce agreements that effectively grant one party a free option to speculate on market prices at the other party's expense. This case serves as a foundational example of an illusory promise and reinforces the principle that consideration must consist of a genuine, bargained-for legal detriment.
