Acemco, Incorporated V. Ryerson Tull Coil Processing Case Study

Businesses world wide structure their operations on agreements to conduct day to day operations. As a result, questions and disputes arise daily. For this reason, “every state has a statute that stipulates what types of contracts must be in writing” (Fundamentals of Business Law P196). These statutes are called the “Statutes of Frauds”.
“The actual name of the Statute of Frauds is confusing because it does not actually apply to fraud” (Fundamentals of Business Law P197). Specifically, this statute determines which type of contracts must be in writing. In other words, the “Statute of Frauds” refers to the requirement that certain kinds of contracts be made in writing and signed. Traditionally, the Statute of Frauds requires a written contract
In particular, the matter of Acemco, Incorporated v. Ryerson Tull Coil Processing. This case involved a contract dispute between a buyer and seller of steel for automotive parts, and the argument over the perceived lack of “mutuality” and an enforceable “quantity term”. The disagreement was over the language stating “that the buyer agrees to purchase quantities of product from the seller, as the buyer may specify in purchase orders, with an estimated total volume listed in pounds”. The case began in the Muskegon Circuit Court in July, 2006. An appeal was filed and on January 15, 2008 and the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the agreement was unenforceable because it lacked a “specifically stated quantity” and that the contract language is “ambiguous”. In September, 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court found that the agreement “unambiguously provides a quantity term” referring to the estimated volume listed in pounds. However, Justice Kelly found ambiguous subject language within the agreement, leaving it up to a jury to resolve the ambiguity through parol