Wilsonville Concrete Products v. Todd Bldg. Co.
Citation | 281 Or. 345,574 P.2d 1112 |
Parties | , 23 UCC Rep.Serv. 590 WILSONVILLE CONCRETE PRODUCTS, a co-partnership consisting of Wesley A. Schaeffer, James Bernert and Thomas Bernert, Appellant, v. TODD BUILDING COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation, Respondent. |
Decision Date | 14 February 1978 |
Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Fred A. Anderson of Anderson, Dittman & Anderson, Tigard, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.
James C. Rhodes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., and Al J. Laue, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Plaintiff brought this action for lost profits, alleging that defendant had breached a contract to buy concrete from plaintiff. The case was submitted to the trial court on the following stipulated facts:
In addition, the trial court had before it the following evidence:
"PURCHASE ORDER
TODD BUILDING COMPANY Ship To: TODD BUILDING CO.
By: /s/ R. G. Phillips
R. G. Phillips" Both parties then moved for summary judgment pursuant to ORS 18.105, there being no disputed factual issues. The trial court granted defendant's motion, stating in a letter opinion:
and entered judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff's assignments of error contend:
In their briefs, both parties agree
Plaintiff argues that although the contract was a requirements contract, "(t) he 'requirements' of the pre-mix contract between plaintiff as materialman and defendant as prime contractor, are properly measured by the total foreseeable quantities of pre-mix concrete as required by a completed project as contemplated by the parties at the time of issuance of the purchase order."
Both at common law (pre-code) and under the Oregon Uniform Commercial Code, a requirements contract is simply an agreement by the buyer to buy his good faith requirements of goods exclusively from the seller. If in good faith the buyer has no requirements, then he is not obligated to buy anything. See 1A Corbin on Contracts 30-33, § 156 (1963).
ORS 72.3060(1) provides:
"(1) A term which measures the quantity by the output of the seller or the requirements of the buyer means such actual output or requirements as may occur in good faith, except that no quantity unreasonably disproportionate to any stated estimate or in the absence of a stated estimate to any normal or otherwise comparable prior output or requirements may be tendered or demanded."
In reference to ORS 72.3060(1), Oregon's Uniform Commercial Code With Comments and Index and Tables,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State of Ill. ex rel. Hartigan v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.
...out. See Empire Gas Corp. v. American Bakeries Co., 840 F.2d 1333, 1340-41 (7th Cir.1988); Wilsonville Concrete Products v. Todd Building Co., 281 Ore. 345, 352, 574 P.2d 1112, 1115 (1978); Royal Paper Box Co. v. E.R. Apt Shoe Co., 290 Mass. 207, 195 N.E. 96 (1935); Fort Wayne Corrugated Pa......
-
State of Ill. ex rel. Hartigan v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.
...he is dissatisfied with the terms of the contract as they have worked themselves out. See Wilsonville Concrete Products v. Todd Building Co., 281 Or. 345, 352, 574 P.2d 1112, 1115 (1978); Royal Paper Box Co. v. E.R. Apt Shoe Co., 290 Mass. 207, 195 N.E. 96 (1935); Fort Wayne Corrugated Pape......
-
Vulcan Materials Co. v. Atofina Chemicals Inc.
...merely have had second thoughts about the terms of the contract and want to get out of it. See Wilsonville Concrete Products v. Todd Building Co., 281 Or. 345, 352, 574 P.2d 1112, 1115 (1978); Royal Paper Box Co. v. E.R. Apt. Shoe Co., 290 Mass. 207, 195 N.E. 96 (1935); Fort Wayne Corrugate......
-
United Services Auto Ass'n v. Schlang
...from the seller." Stacks v. F & S Petroleum Co. Inc., 6 Ark.App. 327, 641 S.W.2d 726, 727 (1982); Wilsonville Concrete Products v. Todd Bldg. Co., 281 Or. 345, 574 P.2d 1112, 1114-15 (1978). Of course, at no place in the letter "agreement" relied upon by Schlang does he agree, exclusively o......