Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2609 (2026)

Contract for sale; performance; insecurity, demand, assurance of due performance.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

Act 174 of 1962

440.2609 Contract for sale; performance; insecurity, demand, assurance of due performance.

Sec. 2609.

(1) A contract for sale imposes an obligation on each party that the other's expectation of receiving due performance will not be impaired. When reasonable grounds for insecurity arise with respect to the performance of either party the other may in writing demand adequate assurance of due performance and until he receives such assurance may if commercially reasonable suspend any performance for which he has not already received the agreed return.

(2) Between merchants the reasonableness of grounds for insecurity and the adequacy of any assurance offered shall be determined according to commercial standards.

(3) Acceptance of any improper delivery or payment does not prejudice the aggrieved party's right to demand adequate assurance of future performance.

(4) After receipt of a justified demand failure to provide within a reasonable time not exceeding 30 days such assurance of due performance as is adequate under the circumstances of the particular case is a repudiation of the contract.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2022 · leading case: Bandit Indus., Inc. v. Hobbs Int'l, Inc., 620 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bandit Indus., Inc. v. Hobbs Int'l, Inc., 620 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 4× “In our order, we directed the attention of the Court of Appeals to the manner in which the word “assurance” is used in § 2-609 of the Uniform Commercial Code, MCL 440.2609; MSA 19.2609, and in the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 USC 365(b)(1)(C).”

Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. v. Deutsche Solar GmbH, 116 F. Supp. 3d 818 (E.D. Mich. 2015). · cites it 2× “In a reply to this letter, Hemlock expressed its belief that Deutsche Solar’s assurances were inadequate and that “Deutsche Solar’s October 16 response fails to provide the requisité assurances contemplated ' by MCLA § 440.2609 and applicable Michigan law[.”

Mayco Plastics, Inc. v. TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc. (In Re Mayco Plastics, Inc.), 389 B.R. 7 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2008). · cites it 4× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2609 (1) permits a buyer who believes that the performance of its seller is uncertain to request in writing assurance of performance rather than simply waiting to see if the seller performs under a contract for sale.”

By-Lo Oil Co., Inc. v. Partech, Inc., 11 F. App'x 538 (6th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2609 (emphasis added).”

Radiance Aluminum Fence, Inc. v. Marquis Metal Material Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2020). “Laws § 440.2609 (“After receipt of a justified demand, failure to provide within a reasonable time not exceeding 30 days such assurance of due performance as is adequate under the circumstances of the particular case is a repudiation of the contract.”

BAE Indus., Inc. v. Agrati - Medina, LLC (E.D. Mich. 2022). “On June 17, 2022, Agrati sent an e-mail refusing to provide the requested financial statements, and in response, Plaintiff sent a letter the same day seeking adequate assurance of continued performance under Michigan Compiled Laws § 440.2609. (ECF No. 5 at Pg ID 129.) On June…”

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.