Case Summary 8.1 :: Fisherman SurgicalInstruments, Llc v. Tri-Anim Health Services, Inc.,502 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (Kan. 2007)

Fisherman makes high-end surgical instruments for use by medical professionals. Notlong after the company opened, it contracted with a medical supply dealer,Tri-anim, tosell its instruments to doctors. The contract did not include quantity but did state thatTri-animwould buy from Fisherman based on "mutually agreed upon sales goals." Theparties also agreed thatTri-animwould not sell products that competed with Fisherman'sinstruments. Shortly afterTri-animbegan selling the products, surgeons complained thatthe quality of Fisherman's instruments was substandard.Tri-animthen began selling acompetitor's products. They also cancelled the contract with Fisherman saying it wasvoid under the UCC because the agreement did not specify the quantity of goods.

1.)Who prevails and why?

2.)Is this a requirements contract or output contract?

3.) If Tri-animdid not cancel the contract but instead bought nothing and soldnothing, would Fisherman have any cause of action againstTri-anim? If so, whatwould be the appropriate remedy?