Airboss: A Practical Guide To Where Things Stand

As most are aware, the Michigan Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in MSSC, Inc. v. Airboss Flexible Products addressed the question of what purchase promise is required to create an enforceable requirements contract (i.e., an obligation of continued supply) under Michigan law.¹ However, since then courts have disagreed on what Airboss said and, thus, whether particular contract promises are sufficient. This update will focus on providing a practical understanding of where things stand now. Butzel has addressed the reasoning and outcome of Airboss and many of the subsequent cases in prior Client Alerts {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6}, as well as in webinars and presentations. It will not repeat those legal analyses, except for cases central to understanding the current state of Michigan law.