Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 47
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2306 (2026)

Output, requirements and exclusive dealings

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A term which measures the quantity by the output of the seller or the requirements of the buyer means such actual output or requirements as may occur in good faith, except that no quantity unreasonably disproportionate to any stated estimate or in the absence of a stated estimate to any normal or otherwise comparable prior output or requirements may be tendered or demanded.

B. A lawful agreement by either the seller or the buyer for exclusive dealing in the kind of goods concerned imposes unless otherwise agreed an obligation by the seller to use best efforts to supply the goods and by the buyer to use best efforts to promote their sale.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2008–2015 · leading case: Aga Shareholders, LLC v. CSK Auto, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Ariz. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aga Shareholders, LLC v. CSK Auto, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Ariz. 2008). · cites it 2× “AGA seeks summary judgment as to CSK’s liability on count one on the ground that both the terms of the Agreement and evidence regarding the parties’ intent establish that the Agreement constitutes a 5-year requirements contract.”
Johnson v. Swing, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0625 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2015). · cites it 2× “¶21 SFG presented evidence to the jury that Utility breached its tariff contract by: (1) overcharging SFG for deliveries of both CAP water and effluent; (2) withholding effluent; (3) improperly charging for minimum bills; (4) over-delivering irrigation water resulting in…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2306(A): 1 case
Aga Shareholders, LLC v. CSK Auto, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (D. Ariz. 2008). “AGA seeks summary judgment as to CSK’s liability on count one on the ground that both the terms of the Agreement and evidence regarding the parties’ intent establish that the Agreement constitutes a 5-year requirements contract.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2306(B): 1 case
Johnson v. Swing, No. 1 CA-CV 13-0625 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2015). “¶21 SFG presented evidence to the jury that Utility breached its tariff contract by: (1) overcharging SFG for deliveries of both CAP water and effluent; (2) withholding effluent; (3) improperly charging for minimum bills; (4) over-delivering irrigation water resulting in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.