Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
BRC Rubber & Plastics Inc. v. Continental Carbon Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
981 F.3d 618 (2020)
Under the uniform commercial code, a party with reasonable grounds for insecurity may demand adequate assurance of the other party's performance. If the other party fails to provide such assurances within a reasonable time, repudiation occurs.
In BRC Rubber and Plastics versus Continental Carbon Company, the Seventh Circuit considers what constitutes adequate assurances.
BRC Rubber and Plastics, a manufacturer of rubber products, entered into a contract with Continental Carbon Company, a supplier of carbon black, a key component in rubber. Continental agreed to supply BRC approximately one point eight million pounds of carbon black annually for five years beginning January first twenty ten. The contract set firm baseline prices. During the first four months of twenty eleven, Continental supplied BRC with approximately one point three million pounds of carbon black. However, Continental then demanded a two cents per pound price increase.
BRC objected, arguing that the increase violated the party's contract. Continental continued to demand a price increase and failed to deliver certain shipments in a timely manner. On May sixteenth, BRC formally invoked article two section six zero nine of the uniform commercial code, which allows a party with reasonable grounds for insecurity regarding the other party's performance to demand adequate assurance of performance.
If such assurances aren't received, the contract may be deemed repudiated.
On May twentieth, Continental's counsel responded that the company would abide by the party's contract.
However, over the next several weeks, Continental continued to push for a price increase.
On June second, BRC notified Continental that it was treating the contract as repudiated.
BRC then secured an alternative supplier and filed suit against Continental.
Continental conceded that its conduct gave BRC reasonable grounds for insecurity, but argued that its assurances were adequate.
The district court disagreed, holding that BRC was justified in treating the contract as repudiated.
Continental appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/brc-rubber-plastics-inc-v-continental-carbon-co
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/brc-rubber-plastics-inc-v-continental-carbon-co
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
BRC Rubber & Plastics Inc. v. Continental Carbon Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
981 F.3d 618 (2020)
Under the uniform commercial code, a party with reasonable grounds for insecurity may demand adequate assurance of the other party's performance. If the other party fails to provide such assurances within a reasonable time, repudiation occurs.
In BRC Rubber and Plastics versus Continental Carbon Company, the Seventh Circuit considers what constitutes adequate assurances.
BRC Rubber and Plastics, a manufacturer of rubber products, entered into a contract with Continental Carbon Company, a supplier of carbon black, a key component in rubber. Continental agreed to supply BRC approximately one point eight million pounds of carbon black annually for five years beginning January first twenty ten. The contract set firm baseline prices. During the first four months of twenty eleven, Continental supplied BRC with approximately one point three million pounds of carbon black. However, Continental then demanded a two cents per pound price increase.
BRC objected, arguing that the increase violated the party's contract. Continental continued to demand a price increase and failed to deliver certain shipments in a timely manner. On May sixteenth, BRC formally invoked article two section six zero nine of the uniform commercial code, which allows a party with reasonable grounds for insecurity regarding the other party's performance to demand adequate assurance of performance.
If such assurances aren't received, the contract may be deemed repudiated.
On May twentieth, Continental's counsel responded that the company would abide by the party's contract.
However, over the next several weeks, Continental continued to push for a price increase.
On June second, BRC notified Continental that it was treating the contract as repudiated.
BRC then secured an alternative supplier and filed suit against Continental.
Continental conceded that its conduct gave BRC reasonable grounds for insecurity, but argued that its assurances were adequate.
The district court disagreed, holding that BRC was justified in treating the contract as repudiated.
Continental appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/brc-rubber-plastics-inc-v-continental-carbon-co
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/brc-rubber-plastics-inc-v-continental-carbon-co
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
