1. Scenario: Daryl Dixon, Inc. (Dixon) is a reputable and popular crossbow manufacturer. Based upon Dixons reputation and popularity, Grimes Stores, LLC. (Grimes) enters into a contract with Dixon. The contract is a requirements contract, stipulating that Grimes will purchase whatever number of Zombie Buster branded cross bows it needs for a one-year period, at a per-unit price of $100.00. Two developments result in litigation between Dixon and Grimes. First, due to an unanticipated fiberglass shortage, that drove up fiberglass component pricing by 1,000%. Second, due to an unexpected onslaught of walking dead, consumer demand for crossbows increased dramatically, resulting in a 500% increase in Grimes crossbow orders to Dixon, compared to order averages over the previous ten years (the parties have a long-standing business relationship.) Dixon implores Grimes to increase its per-unit purchase price to $300.00, but Grimes refuses to modify the price term stipulated in the contract. When Grimes refuses to pay a higher price for the crossbows, Dixon ceases delivery, claiming that his company would go bankrupt by continuing to fill Grimes orders; further, Dixon claims that based upon the longstanding business relationship between the parties, Grimes has at least an ethical obligation to pay a higher price.

1. Who wins the case? Does Grimes have an ethical obligation to pay a higher price, based upon such an unanticipated change in circumstances?