By: Derek Hawkins//September 11, 2018//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: BRC Rubber & Plastics, Incorporated v. Continental Carbon Company
Case No.: 17-2783
Officials: RIPPLE, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Breach of Contract
This case involves a contract dispute over the sale and purchase of carbon black, an important ingredient in rubber products. BRC Rubber & Plastics, Inc. (“BRC”) seeks to recover from Continental Carbon Co. (“Continental”) costs that it incurred in purchasing carbon black from another supplier following Continental’s alleged repudiation of the parties’ supply agreement.
Initially, BRC claimed that the agreement was a requirements contract, i.e., a supply agreement in which Continental promised to provide all of the carbon black that BRC required. Because Continental failed to do so, the district court awarded summary judgment to BRC.
In a prior appeal, we rejected the characterization of the agreement as a requirements contract and, therefore, vacated the judgment. In remanded proceedings, BRC, without amending its complaint, pursued the alternative theory that the agreement is for the supply of a fixed amount of carbon black. The district court granted summary judgment to Continental for two reasons: BRC’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief under any theory of the agreement other than as a requirements contract; in the alternative, the agreement is unenforceable for a lack of mutuality and consideration.
BRC now appeals. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we conclude that the parties’ agreement is enforceable and that BRC can proceed on its alternative characterization of the contract as an agreement for a fixed amount of carbon black. We, therefore, reverse and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion
Reversed and Remanded