Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 JULY 2023

Michigan Supreme Court Decision – A Reminder On Requirements Contracts

Dickinson Wright PLLC
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Contributor
Dickinson Wright PLLC

Dickinson Wright PLLC

Dickinson Wright is a full-service law firm with more than 550 lawyers, serving clients across the...

View firm profile
Explore more from Dickinson Wright PLLC

Michigan law requires contracts for the sale of goods worth $1,000 or more to be in writing and provide a quantity term. On July 11, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled...

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Michigan law requires contracts for the sale of goods worth $1,000 or more to be in writing and provide a quantity term. On July 11, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in MSSC, Inc. v. Airboss Flexible Products Co. (Docket No. 163523) that a "blanket" purchase order—setting forth the terms of forthcoming sales—did not constitute a requirements contract because a quantity term was lacking (more simply, the term "blanket" was undefined). As a refresher, a requirements contract is a contract in which a buyer promises to buy, and a seller to supply, a set amount or percentage of the goods that a buyer needs during a specified period (for example, 100% of buyer's requirements). By contrast, a blanket purchase order lacking an express quantity term is now recognized as a "release-by-release" contract.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from