Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp.
543 F.3d 987 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a requirements contract, the buyer's implied obligation of good faith under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is sufficient consideration to establish mutuality of obligation, even if the buyer has no requirements at the time of formation. Furthermore, a price-matching clause that gives the seller a right of first refusal does not render the buyer's promise illusory.
Facts:
- Zoltek Corporation is a manufacturer of carbon fiber, while Structural Polymer Group (SP) uses carbon fiber to produce a building material called 'pre-preg' for applications like wind turbine blades.
- In November 2000, Zoltek and SP entered into a ten-year Supply Agreement, under which Zoltek would supply SP's total requirements for a specific type of carbon fiber, Panex 33.
- SP agreed to purchase its total requirements for this fiber exclusively from Zoltek, with the annual volume capped at the previous year's purchases plus one million pounds.
- The purpose of the agreement was to develop a new market for Zoltek's large-tow fiber as a less expensive alternative to the more common small-tow fiber.
- In April 2002, Zoltek discontinued its Panex 33 product and began producing a new version called Panex 35.
- SP purchased small amounts of Panex 33 in 2000 and 2001, but ordered no carbon fiber from Zoltek in 2003.
- After purchasing Panex 35 in 2004, SP placed large orders for Panex 35 in 2005 and 2006, which Zoltek refused to fill, leading to the dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 22, 2005, SP sued Zoltek in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri for breach of contract, seeking lost profits.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- On November 29, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of SP, awarding damages under two separate counts for lost profits on Panex 33 and Panex 35.
- The district court granted Zoltek's post-trial motion in part, vacating the smaller of the two awards as duplicative and reducing the total judgment.
- Zoltek filed motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the contract was unenforceable and the damages were speculative.
- The district court denied Zoltek's motions for a new trial and for judgment as a matter of law.
- Zoltek, as appellant, appealed the district court's denial of its post-trial motions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- SP, as cross-appellant, appealed the district court's decision to reduce the jury's damages award.
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 requirements contract for the sale of goods lack the necessary mutuality of obligation to be enforceable when the buyer had no requirements at the time of formation and the contract contained a price-matching clause allowing the buyer to purchase from others if the seller declined to match a lower price?
Opinions:
Majority - Colloton, J.
No. A requirements contract does not lack mutuality of obligation under these circumstances and is therefore enforceable. The court held that the Supply Agreement was supported by adequate consideration as a matter of law. Zoltek argued the contract lacked mutuality because SP's promises were illusory for three reasons, all of which the court rejected. First, the court found that even if SP had zero requirements at formation, the implied obligation of good faith under Missouri law (UCC § 2-306) provides sufficient consideration; a failure to purchase anything might constitute a bad-faith breach, but it does not invalidate the contract itself. Second, the price protection clause was not an unfettered option for SP to buy elsewhere; it was a right of first refusal for Zoltek, obligating SP to purchase from Zoltek if Zoltek matched a competitor's price, which does not make the promise illusory. Third, even if SP could purchase an 'interchangeable' small-tow fiber from other suppliers, doing so without a good-faith reason would be a potential breach of the requirements contract, not proof that the contract lacked consideration from the outset.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the validity and enforceability of requirements contracts under the UCC, emphasizing the crucial role of the implied duty of good faith. It clarifies that a buyer's promise is not illusory simply because their requirements are uncertain at the time of contracting or even if they are zero. The ruling also provides important guidance on price-matching clauses, establishing that a seller's right of first refusal preserves mutuality of obligation. For future cases, this opinion strengthens the position of buyers in requirements contracts and makes it more difficult for sellers to escape their obligations by claiming the buyer's promise was too indefinite.
