Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 662, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1.)
1981 Ed., § 28:2-609.
1973 Ed., § 28:2-609.
This section is referenced in
§ 28:2-210 and § 28:2-611. Uniform Commercial Code Comment
Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: See Sections 53, 54(1)(b), 55 and 63(2), Uniform Sales Act.
Purposes: 1. The section rests on the recognition of the fact that the essential purpose of a contract between commercial men is actual performance and they do not bargain merely for a promise, or for a promise plus the right to win a law suit and that a continuing sense of reliance and security that the promised performance will be forthcoming when due, is an important feature of the bargain. If either the willingness or the ability of a party to perform declines materially between the time of contracting and the time for performance, the other party is threatened with the loss of a substantial part of what he has bargained for. A seller needs protection not merely against having to deliver on credit to a shaky buyer, but also against having to procure and manufacture the goods, perhaps turning down other customers. Once he has been given reason to believe that the buyer’s performance has become uncertain, it is an undue hardship to force him to continue his own performance. Similarly, a buyer who believes that the seller’s deliveries have become uncertain cannot safely wait for the due date of performance when he has been buying to assure himself of materials for his current manufacturing or to replenish his stock of merchandise.
2. Three measures have been adopted to meet the needs of commercial men in such situations. First, the aggrieved party is permitted to suspend his own performance and any preparation therefor, with excuse for any resulting necessary delay, until the situation has been clarified. “Suspend performance” under this section means to hold up performance pending the outcome of the demand, and includes also the holding up of any preparatory action. This is the same principle which governs the ancient law of stoppage and seller’s lien, and also of excuse of a buyer from prepayment if the seller’s actions manifest that he cannot or will not perform. (Original Act, Section 63(2).)
Secondly, the aggrieved party is given the right to require adequate assurance that the other party’s performance will be duly forthcoming. This principle is reflected in the familiar clauses permitting the seller to curtail deliveries if the buyer’s credit becomes impaired, which when held within the limits of reasonableness and good faith actually express no more than the fair business meaning of any commercial contract.
Third, and finally, this section provides the means by which the aggrieved party may treat the contract as broken if his reasonable grounds for insecurity are not cleared up within a reasonable time. This is the principle underlying the law of anticipatory breach, whether by way of defective part performance or by repudiation. The present section merges these three principles of law and commercial practice into a single theory of general application to all sales agreements looking to future performance.
3. Subsection (2) of the present section requires that “reasonable” grounds and “adequate” assurance as used in subsection (1) be defined by commercial rather than legal standards. The express reference to commercial standards carries no connotation that the obligation of good faith is not equally applicable here.
Under commercial standards and in accord with commercial practice, a ground for insecurity need not arise from or be directly related to the contract in question. The law as to “dependence” or “independence” of promises within a single contract does not control the application of the present section.
Thus a buyer who falls behind in “his account” with the seller, even though the items involved have to do with separate and legally distinct contracts, impairs the seller’s expectation of due performance. Again, under the same test, a buyer who requires precision parts which he intends to use immediately upon delivery, may have reasonable grounds for insecurity if he discovers that his seller is making defective deliveries of such parts to other buyers with similar needs. Thus, too, in a situation such as arose in Jay Dreher Corporation v. Delco Appliance Corporation, 93 F.2d 275 (C.C.A.2, 1937), where a manufacturer gave a dealer an exclusive franchise for the sale of his product but on two or three occasions breached the exclusive dealing clause, although there was no default in orders, deliveries or payments under the separate sales contract between the parties, the aggrieved dealer would be entitled to suspend his performance of the contract for sale under the present section and to demand assurance that the exclusive dealing contract would be lived up to. There is no need for an explicit clause tying the exclusive franchise into the contract for the sale of goods since the situation itself ties the agreements together.
The nature of the sales contract enters also into the question of reasonableness. For example, a report, from an apparently trustworthy source that the seller had shipped defective goods or was planning to ship them would normally give the buyer reasonable grounds for insecurity. But when the buyer has assumed the risk of payment before inspection of the goods, as in a sales contract on C.I.F. or similar cash against documents terms, that risk is not to be evaded by a demand for assurance. Therefore no ground for insecurity would exist under this section unless the report went to a ground which would excuse payment by the buyer.
4. What constitutes “adequate” assurance of due performance is subject to the same test of factual conditions. For example, where the buyer can make use of a defective delivery, a mere promise by a seller of good repute that he is giving the matter his attention and that the defect will not be repeated is normally sufficient. Under the same circumstances, however, a similar statement by a known corner-cutter might well be considered insufficient without the posting of a guaranty or, if so demanded by the buyer, a speedy replacement of the delivery involved. By the same token where a delivery has defects, even though easily curable, which interfere with easy use by the buyer, no verbal assurance can be deemed adequate which is not accompanied by replacement, repair, money-allowance, or other commercially reasonable cure.
A fact situation such as arose in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Fasola, 94 N.J.L. 181, 109 A. 505 (1920) officers illustration both of reasonable grounds for insecurity and “adequate” assurance. In that case a contract for the sale of oils on 30 days’ credit, 2% off for payment within 10 days, provided that credit was to be extended to the buyer only if his financial responsibility was satisfactory to the seller. The buyer had been in the habit of taking advantage of the discount but at the same time that he failed to make his customary 10 day payment, the seller heard rumors, in fact false, that the buyer’s financial condition was shaky. Thereupon, the seller demanded cash before shipment or security satisfactory to him. The buyer sent a good credit report from his banker, expressed willingness to make payments when due on the 30 day terms and insisted on further deliveries under the contract. Under this Article the rumors, although false, were enough to make the buyer’s financial condition “unsatisfactory” to the seller under the contract clause. Moreover, the buyer’s practice of taking the cash discounts is enough, apart from the contract clause, to lay a commercial foundation for suspicion when the practice is suddenly stopped. These matters, however, go only to the justification of the seller’s demand for security, or his “reasonable grounds for insecurity”.
The adequacy of the assurance given is not measured as in the type of “satisfaction” situation affected with intangibles, such as in personal service cases, cases involving a third party’s judgment as final, or cases in which the whole contract is dependent on one party’s satisfaction, as in a sale on approval. Here, the seller must exercise good faith and observe commercial standards. This Article thus approves the statement of the court in James B. Berry’s Sons Co. of Illinois v. Monark Gasoline & Oil Co., Inc., 32 F.2d 74, (C.C.A.8, 1929), that the seller’s satisfaction under such a clause must be based upon reason and must not be arbitrary or capricious; and rejects the purely personal “good faith” test of the Corn Products Refining Co. case, which held that in the seller’s sole judgment, if for any reason he was dissatisfied, he was entitled to revoke the credit. In the absence of the buyer’s failure to take the 2% discount as was his custom, the banker’s report given in that case would have been “adequate” assurance under this Act, regardless of the language of the “satisfaction” clause. However, the seller is reasonably entitled to feel insecure at a sudden expansion of the buyer’s use of a credit term, and should be entitled either to security or to a satisfactory explanation.
The entire foregoing discussion as to adequacy of assurance by way of explanation is subject to qualification when repeated occasions for the application of this section arise. This Act recognizes that repeated delinquencies must be viewed as cumulative. On the other hand, commercial sense also requires that if repeated claims for assurance are made under this section, the basis for these claims must be increasingly obvious.
5. A failure to provide adequate assurance of performance and thereby to re-establish the security of expectation results in a breach only “by repudiation” under subsection (4). Therefore, the possibility is continued of retraction of the repudiation under the section dealing with that problem, unless the aggrieved party has acted on the breach in some manner.
The thirty day limit on the time to provide assurance is laid down to free the question of reasonable time from uncertainty in later litigation.
6. Clauses seeking to give the protected party exceedingly wide powers to cancel or readjust the contract when ground for insecurity arises must be read against the fact that good faith is a part of the obligation of the contract and not subject to modification by agreement and includes, in the case of a merchant, the reasonable observance of commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade. Such clauses can thus be effective to enlarge the protection given by the present section to a certain extent, to fix the reasonable time within which requested assurance must be given, or to define adequacy of the assurance in any commercially reasonable fashion. But any clause seeking to set up arbitrary standards for action is ineffective under this Article. Acceleration clauses are treated similarly in the Articles on Commercial Paper and Secured Transactions.
Cross References: Point 3: Section 1-203.
Point 5: Section 2-611.
Point 6: Sections 1-203 and 1-208 and Articles 3 and 9.
Definitional Cross References: “Aggrieved party”. Section 1-201.
“Between merchants”. Section 2-104.
“Contract”. Section 1-201.
“Contract for sale”. Section 2-106.
“Party”. Section 1-201.
“Reasonable time”. Section 1-204.
“Rights”. Section 1-201.
“Writing”. Section 1-201.