Ruling Gives Suppliers an Edge in Contracts
The Michigan Supreme Court rules buyers must more clearly specify what they intend to buy from suppliers in their contracts.

Ruling puts suppliers in better position to ask for a price increase or change contract terms.
IMAGE: Pixabay
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in MSSC Inc. v. AirBoss Flexible Products Co. that buyers must be explicit in contracts in saying what they intend to buy from a seller, according to Automotive News.
That's good news for contracts between auto suppliers and their customers, which are often intentionally vague, the article noted. Now customers in Michigan must now either:
State a specific number of parts that they intend to purchase, or
State what percentage of parts they will buy over the course of the contract.
The ruling in a dispute between Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers comes at a time when many auto suppliers grapple with the financial burden of increased costs, erratic vehicle assembly schedules, and labor-related challenges.
The Michigan Supreme Court decision may give suppliers an edge in negotiating with customers. The AirBoss ruling allows suppliers to inform customers they will cease shipping components if they discover that a contract is no longer enforceable. This puts the supplier in a position to ask for a price increase or change contract terms.
Attorneys told Automotive News they believe the decision, while only applicable to Michigan contracts, could have persuasive and influential effects outside the state.
According to Adam Ratliff, a partner at Warner Norcross + Judd, this decision may rebalance the power dynamics between suppliers and customers.
"It's fair to say there's been a trend toward customer-friendly decisions—an assumption that the customer's view of the contract is the prevailing one, primarily driven by the biggest players in the industry—the OEMs and the large Tier 1s," Ratliff told Automotive News.
Originally posted on Auto Dealer Today
More Compliance

Line 1 Is Not a Junk Drawer
Rolling products into the cash price — even if the bank told you to — misrepresents the vehicle’s value and runs afoul of four federal laws.
Read More →
Dueling Banjos in the Car Biz
Reports and accounts at variance show auto dealers’ trust profiles have risen in many consumers’ minds but that there remains a need for greater transparency by some.
Read More →
NADA and the Miracle on 34th Street
Automotive dealers should follow the National Automobile Dealers Association's consumer-friendly guidelines in order to minimize their legal risks.
Read More →
Another Look at a Recent Data Breach
Get caught up on the most pressing legal and regulatory matters facing dealers and F&I professionals, including data security, shotgun purchases, and inconsistent payment quotes.
Read More →

The Best Thing a Dealer Can Do to Avoid Legal Problems
Citing the issue is a strategy borrowed from the legal field itself.
Read More →
Fines of the Times
Civil penalties for noncompliance with federal auto retail and finance rules and regulations can add up quickly. Use this checklist to cover your bases.
Read More →
Goodwill and Car Dealers
A dealer goodwill tale is a cautionary tale worth paying attention to.
Read More →
The Regulatory Empire Is Striking Back
President Trump - entropist and corporate disruptor in consumer law
Read More →
