Rockland Industries, Inc. v. Frank Kasmir Associates
District Court, N.D. Texas
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
ROBERT W. PORTER, District Judge.
Kasmir has asserted that Rockland orally agreed to continue making three of its patterns available for a period of at least two years after Kasmir’s booking of them. The parties both characterize any such “continuity agreement,” in the absence of evidentiary bar, as constituting a requirements contract. Requirements and output contracts subject to the Uniform Commercial Code are governed by section 2-316 of that Code. That section makes it clear that parties may choose a quantity term solely referable to the buyer’s requirements. U.C.C. § 2-306(l). 1 Had…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- " MOORE" BURGER, INC. v. Phillips Petroleum CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1972
- United States v. Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1954
- Cargill, Incorporated, and Cross-Appellee v. Van Stafford, D/B/A Stafford Elevator, and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1977
- Lish v. ComptonUtah Supreme Court · 1976
- Doral Hosiery Corporation v. Sav-A-Stop, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1974
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1984
- McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Haiman Co. v. First Union Management, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. Marine Midland Realty Credit Corp.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1991
- Mass Cash Register, Inc. v. Comtrex Systems Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1995
- Howard Construction Co. v. Jeff-Cole Quarries, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1984
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.