With the recent announcement of the 2024 Oscars nominees, showings and re-showings of the movies that received a nod from the Academy will be prevalent in the coming months. But it is important to remember that public movie showings are strictly controlled by the U.S. Copyright Act, which grants the exclusive right to authorize public showings of copyrighted works to their owners. Read this overview of how copyright applies to "public" movie showings.
Firearm ownership is at the center of many legal discussions and debates in the US, including how individuals can legally procure guns. Gun trusts are one way of legally and more easily transferring firearm ownership between individuals. Here's an overview of what gun trusts are, their benefits, and some of the key insights to know about drafting a binding gun trust.
On July 11, 2023, the Michigan Supreme Court overruled the lower court’s ruling in the case of MSSC Inc. v. AirBoss Flexible Products Co. By doing so, the Supreme Court has established a precedent that blanket purchase orders are not automatically considered requirements contracts. This implies that buyers must now explicitly state the intended nature of their business relationships and related details, using specific language that does not carry biases in favor of buyers.
The case began as a local pricing dispute between tier one buyer, MSSC, and tier 2 supplier, AirBoss. AirBoss requested a pricing adjustment, and when MSSC refused, AirBoss decided to stop accepting material releases. MSSC sued seeking emergency injunction on the claim that their agreement with AirBoss was a binding requirements contract, despite neither the purchase order nor the terms and conditions of their agreement including a buying requirement for MSSC. The trial court ruled in favor of MSSC because their written agreement with AirBoss insinuated that the agreement was to last for the life of the program.
AirBoss appealed the ruling, claiming a purchase order that does not commit to purchasing anything or state the buyer’s requirement for parts is not a requirements contract. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the ruling in their favor. This re-established that parties are only bound by their written agreements.
Industrial suppliers and buyers alike should take immediate action to review their existing contracts, paying close attention to the language and clarifications, to determine whether they are bound in a requirements contract.
Should you have any questions regarding supply chains or requirements contracts, please contact attorney Jack Ulrich (julrich@kotzsangster.com) or your Kotz Sangster relationship attorney.
