Connection lost
Server error
Simcala, Inc. v. American Coal Trade, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A buyer in a requirements contract, acting in good faith, purchased only 41% of the stated estimate. The court held this was a breach, ruling that UCC § 2-306’s “unreasonably disproportionate” limit applies to both decreases and increases from an estimate.
Legal Significance: Establishes in Alabama that in a requirements contract with a stated estimate, a buyer’s good faith is insufficient to justify an “unreasonably disproportionate” decrease in purchases. The estimate acts as a binding floor and ceiling, not just a ceiling.
Simcala, Inc. v. American Coal Trade, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Simcala, Inc. (Buyer) entered into a requirements contract with American Coal Trade, Inc. (ACT, Seller) for the 1998 calendar year. The governing purchase order, subject to UCC Article 2, provided an estimated quantity of 17,500 tons of coal, explicitly stating this was an “approximate quantity and to be shipped as required.” During the year, Simcala experienced furnace problems and ultimately purchased only 7,200 tons, representing 41% of the estimate. The trial court found that Simcala’s reduction in purchases was made in good faith but was nonetheless “unreasonably disproportionate” to the stated estimate. Simcala argued that its good faith was a complete defense and, alternatively, that ACT committed a prior breach by failing to deliver a 600-ton order in October after its supplier’s mine closed. ACT presented evidence that it could have secured an alternative supply had Simcala continued to place orders.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the “unreasonably disproportionate” quantity limitation in UCC § 2-306(1) apply to a buyer’s good-faith reduction of its requirements below a stated estimate in a requirements contract?
Yes. The court held that the “unreasonably disproportionate” language in UCC § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut al
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the “unreasonably disproportionate” quantity limitation in UCC § 2-306(1) apply to a buyer’s good-faith reduction of its requirements below a stated estimate in a requirements contract?
Conclusion
This case establishes a minority-view precedent in Alabama, prioritizing statutory textualism to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco lab
Legal Rule
Under Alabama's UCC § 7-2-306(1), in a requirements contract containing a stated Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea com
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Alabama, addressing an issue of first impression, adopted Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est la
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under UCC § 2-306(1), the clause forbidding a quantity “unreasonably disproportionate”