Hemlock Semiconductor Operations, LLC v. SolarWorld Industries Sachsen GmbH
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
867 F.3d 692 (2017)
Hemlock Semiconductor Operations, LLC (plaintiff) entered into a series of agreements to supply SolarWorld Industries Sachsen GmbH (defendant) with specific quantities of polysilicon at fixed prices over a 14-year period. In exchange, SolarWorld agreed to a take-or-pay provision stating that SolarWorld would pay for a minimum amount of polysilicon each year, even if it took delivery of less than that amount. Further, under the agreements’ liquidated-damages provision, if SolarWorld failed to pay this minimum amount in a given year, then it had to pay Hemlock the minimum amount for that year plus any future years still left in the agreements. Several years into the agreements, the Chinese government began subsidizing polysilicon production in China, which unexpectedly drove down market prices. Although Hemlock and SolarWorld negotiated a temporary downward price adjustment in one year’s agreement, they were unable to agree on any amendments to the future agreements. The next year, SolarWorld did not pay the contractual minimum amount. Hemlock sued for breach of contract, seeking damages under the liquidated-damages provision. SolarWorld claimed that the Chinese government had acted illegally in dumping massive amounts of polysilicon on the market and had illegally committed criminal espionage against an entity related to SolarWorld. SolarWorld argued that these illegal actions were unforeseeable events that supported the defenses of impossibility, impracticability, and frustration of purpose. The district court determined that these defenses did not apply. The district court based this conclusion on its findings that: (1) market shifts, for any reason, were a basic assumption of the parties’ agreements and (2) the parties’ primary contractual purpose was to provide SolarWorld “with a stable supply of polysilicon at a predictable price.” SolarWorld appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Gilman, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 726,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 726,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.