Besco, Inc., as Assignee of B & W Sales Co. v. Alpha Portland Cement Co.

619 F.2d 447, 29 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 436, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16525
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 18, 1980
Docket80-7114
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 619 F.2d 447 (Besco, Inc., as Assignee of B & W Sales Co. v. Alpha Portland Cement Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Besco, Inc., as Assignee of B & W Sales Co. v. Alpha Portland Cement Co., 619 F.2d 447, 29 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 436, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16525 (5th Cir. 1980).

Opinion

TATE, Circuit Judge:

Besco, Inc. originally sued Alpha in the Equity Division of an Alabama county court alleging the defendant’s breaches of its contract to buy kiln dust from Alpha and praying for injunctive relief, enjoining the defendant “under the circumstances existing, from refusing to allow the plaintiff to load and purchase Kiln Dust under its agreement with the defendant.” This diversity case was removed to federal court. The trial judge granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding the sales contract to be terminable at will with reasonable notice. After this court dismissed appeal of that non-final order, the district judge granted the defendant Alpha’s motion for summary judgment, thus denying the plaintiff Besco injunctive relief, based on the previous holding of the terminability of the contract and on an additional finding that reasonable notice had been given. Because we find that the contract is not terminable at the will of either party, we reverse.

On appeal, the plaintiff urges error principally in the trial court’s interpretation of this contract. The district court considered *448 the contract to be of indefinite duration and thus invoked Alabama law, Ala.U.C.C. § 7-2-309 (1965) 1 (taken verbatim from section 2-309 of the Uniform Commercial Code), to hold the contract terminable at will. The plaintiff maintains that the contract provides no occasion for resort to the Alabama statute, for the document itself establishes its duration by defining those events which would permit termination — i. e., the contract may not be terminated at any time by either party since it is “otherwise agreed,” Ala.Code § 7-2-309(2), by the contract.

The contract in question was dated November 15, 1974 and provided initially that

ALPHA hereby gives to B & W SALES CO. [the plaintiff’s assignor] an exclusive right to purchase KILN DUST for use as an agricultural soil sweetener, or as mineral filler for agricultural purposes as may result from ALPHA’S manufacturing operations at the PLANT, provided that 20,000 tons of this material are sold annually. Otherwise the exclusive right is withdrawn but a non-exclusive right to purchase will continue.

Alpha was given the right to immediate termination, with five days written notice, upon the occurrence of certain special events:

A. If a Petition in Bankruptcy shall be filed by or against B & W SALES CO.
B. If B & W SALES CO. shall enter into a composition with his creditors.
C. If a receiver is appointed for B & W SALES CO.
D. Violation of Article II, Subsection B [the provision requiring B & W to buy its requirements for kiln dust in the Birmingham area from Alpha unless Alpha’s supply is insufficient].

Aside from these special events allowing termination, the “Term and Termination” of the contract was set forth in the third section of the contract as follows:

A. The exclusive right to purchase given by ALPHA to B & W SALES CO. shall remain open and shall not be withdrawa-ble by ALPHA except on default by B & W SALES CO. as hereinafter defined.
B. The option shall continue indefinitely, subject always to the right in ALPHA, on and after September 1, 1975j to give written notice of intention to withdraw the exclusive right to purchase 90 days after the date of the notice, and subject also to the right in B & W SALES CO. after September 1, 1975, to give written notice of his intention to cease purchases hereunder 90 days after the date of the notice. The right of ALPHA to withdraw the exclusive right to purchase for said agricultural purposes shall be based solely on (1) either the failure of B & W SALES CO. to dispose of at least 20,000 tons of this material annually or (2) upon the unavailability of the material due to its use in the cement manufacturing process at the ALPHA plant. (Emphasis added.)

We agree with the plaintiff that this language quite explicitly provides for the duration of the contract insofar as it binds Alpha. 2 Alpha is to be bound until 90 days *449 after written notice of intent to withdraw and such notice may be predicated only upon one of the two events listed above. While the contract is of indefinite duration in one respect, since its length is not defined in units of time in such a manner that a termination date is clear from its inception, it may not “be terminated at any time by either party” because the parties have “otherwise agreed” to limit Alpha’s termination rights in the manner clearly disclosed in the quoted provisions. 3 Ala.U. C.C. § 7-2-309. In view of these express contractual provisions, our result is not inconsistent with the jurisprudence disfavoring perpetual contracts cited by the defendant Alpha, to the effect that “the construction of a contract conferring indefinite duration is to be avoided unless compelled by the unequivocal language of the contract.” Southern Bell v. Florida East Coast Ry. Co., 399 F.2d 854, 858 (5th Cir. 1968). (Emphasis supplied).

It is not contended that either of the contractual events occurred which would have justified Alpha in withdrawing from the contract upon ninety days notice. Nor is it contended that any of the events (A through D in the contract clause second-quoted above in our opinion) entitled Alpha to terminate the contract on five days notice under the contract terms. Alpha simply contends that as a matter of law the contract was terminable at will, as one of indefinite duration, despite the express contractual provisions to the contrary. This contention we reject, for the reasons stated above.

Since we find that the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law 4 we reverse the summary judgment granted in its favor and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

1

. Ala.Code § 7-2-309. Absence of specific time provisions; notice of termination.

(1) The time for shipment or delivery or any other action under a contract if not provided in this article or agreed upon shall be a reasonable time.
(2) Where the contract provides for successive performances but is indefinite in duration it is valid for a reasonable time but unless otherwise agreed may be terminated at any time by either party.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
619 F.2d 447, 29 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 436, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 16525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/besco-inc-as-assignee-of-b-w-sales-co-v-alpha-portland-cement-co-ca5-1980.