The AirBoss saga continues... This holiday season, AirBoss Flexible Products Co. received a monumental legal victory, righting a costly wrong in MSSC, Inc. v. AirBoss. The Court awarded AirBoss nearly $3.5 million in damages, concluding that MSSC had been unjustly enriched by court orders forcing AirBoss to sell automotive parts at a loss.
At the heart of the dispute was whether the parties had a binding requirements contract. The Michigan Supreme Court previously clarified they did not, finding instead a "release-by-release" contract, which allowed AirBoss to refuse future orders. However, erroneous lower court injunctions had compelled AirBoss to comply, costing it millions. The counterclaim filed by AirBoss continued on for the parts that it was compelled to supply in the interim.
The December ruling affirmed that unjust enrichment occurs when one party profits unfairly through legal coercion. Judge Michael Warren likened the situation to being forced into a deal one couldn't refuse—not by mobsters, but through misapplied legal orders.
This judgment not only delivers long-overdue restitution for AirBoss but also underscores the importance of clarity in business agreements. By emphasizing fairness over force, the Court reminds us that contracts are built on mutual consent, not judicial mandates. For AirBoss, this decision is a hard-won victory wrapped in legal vindication—a timely reminder that justice, much like Christmas, is worth the wait.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
