ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-306 (2026)

Output, requirements and exclusive dealings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-306) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-306)
    Sec. 2-306. Output, requirements and exclusive dealings.
    (1) 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.
    (2) 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.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 2101.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1995–2019 · leading case: Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 770 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. 2002). “The federal court determined that the "unit allocation provision" in the agreement contained the core attributes of a requirements contract (see 810 ILCS 5/2-306 (West 2000)), under which Toyota agreed to supply vehicles to the dealer in the quantities and types ordered, subject…”
Chicago United Indus., Ltd. v. City of Chicago, 669 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2012). “A requirements contract would be empty if the purchaser could at will decide that he “required” less from the seller. To avoid constituting a breach, therefore, a change in requirements has to be in good faith — has to be based for example on a reduction in demand for the…”
Indus. Specialty Chemicals, Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 902 F. Supp. 805 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-306(1). However, requirements contracts must be exclusive to be enforceable — that is, the purchaser must agree to buy all of its requirements from the seller.”
Chicago United Indus., Ltd. v. City of Chicago, 685 F. Supp. 2d 791 (N.D. Ill. 2010). “2001); see also 810 ILCS 5/2-306 (“[a] term which measures the quantity by the * * * 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…”
Royal Consum. Prods. LLC v. Walgreen Co. (N.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the UCC gap-filling provision Royal invokes, 810 ILCS 5/2-306, does not apply. See Brooklyn Bagel, 212 F.”
Crossroads Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Sterling Truck Corp. (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-306(1) (West 2000) (pursuant to a requirements contract, "no quantity unreasonably disproportionate *** to any normal or otherwise comparable prior *** requirements may be tendered").”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-306(1) — 3 cases
Chicago United Indus., Ltd. v. City of Chicago, 669 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2012). “A requirements contract would be empty if the purchaser could at will decide that he “required” less from the seller. To avoid constituting a breach, therefore, a change in requirements has to be in good faith — has to be based for example on a reduction in demand for the…”
Indus. Specialty Chemicals, Inc. v. Cummins Engine Co., 902 F. Supp. 805 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-306(1). However, requirements contracts must be exclusive to be enforceable — that is, the purchaser must agree to buy all of its requirements from the seller.”
Crossroads Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Sterling Truck Corp. (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-306(1) (West 2000) (pursuant to a requirements contract, "no quantity unreasonably disproportionate *** to any normal or otherwise comparable prior *** requirements may be tendered").”
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.