Legal Opinion

Rockland Industries, Inc. v. Frank Kasmir Associates

District Court, N.D. Texas

Decided May 17, 1979No. CA 3-77-1298-FPublishedCited by 18 opinions

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

  1. " MOORE" BURGER, INC. v. Phillips Petroleum CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1972
  2. United States v. Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Co.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1954
  3. Cargill, Incorporated, and Cross-Appellee v. Van Stafford, D/B/A Stafford Elevator, and Cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1977
  4. Lish v. ComptonUtah Supreme Court · 1976
  5. 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

  1. Seaman's Direct Buying Service, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1984
  2. McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Haiman Co. v. First Union Management, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. Federal Deposit Insurance v. Marine Midland Realty Credit Corp.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1991
  4. Mass Cash Register, Inc. v. Comtrex Systems Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1995
  5. Howard Construction Co. v. Jeff-Cole Quarries, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1984

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API