Stellantis and a key parts supplier have told Michigan’s top court they are no longer looking for a sweeping ruling in their long‑running contract dispute, according to recent reporting. That pivot could leave a lower‑court decision in place that quietly shapes how automakers and suppliers write and enforce long‑term purchase orders across the industry.
The legal backstory
The case, FCA US LLC v. Kamax Inc., landed on the Michigan Supreme Court’s docket in late 2025 and was slated for argument during the court’s April 2026 session. The justices had asked the parties to brief a deceptively simple question: can a promise to buy approximately 65%–100% of an automaker’s parts meet the Uniform Commercial Code’s statute of frauds and create an enforceable requirements contract, according to an order from the Michigan Supreme Court.
Crain's report: the parties ask the court to stand down
On April 7, 2026, Crain's Detroit Business reported that both Stellantis and the supplier had informed the Supreme Court they no longer want a decision in the case. The filings signal the parties are backing away from creating a binding statewide precedent on purchase‑order language, although Crain’s noted there was no public settlement disclosed in the court papers.
Why the case mattered
The core issue is whether purchase orders that specify a percentage range will count as definite, enforceable quantity terms. That is not just a theoretical concern. Similar language appears in millions of standard purchase orders that keep Michigan’s auto supply chain moving.
In Kamax, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the 65%–100% range was sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds and supported a requirements contract between the companies, per the Michigan Court of Appeals.
After that win, defense firm Greenberg Traurig touted the decision as validating roughly 1.3 million Stellantis purchase contracts that use similar terms.
Industry warnings
Suppliers and trade groups lined up to tell the Supreme Court that unraveling range‑based orders would be a disaster. An amicus brief from major suppliers, including Magna and Detroit Diesel, warned that a stricter rule could devastate the automotive industry, arguing that flexible quantity terms are baked into just‑in‑time production and the broader Michigan manufacturing economy.
Where the law stands
The legal tug‑of‑war centers on how Michigan courts reconcile two key precedents. In Cadillac Rubber, courts allowed quantity ranges in some supply‑chain contracts. In the Supreme Court’s later Airboss decision, the justices stressed that a writing must fix quantity to comply with the statute of frauds.
Legal analysts had expected Kamax to answer two big questions: whether Cadillac Rubber remains good law after Airboss, and whether a 65%–100% promise is specific enough to satisfy the statute of frauds. Honigman LLP outlined those competing interpretations and why both suppliers and automakers have been watching the case closely.
What this means locally
For Detroit‑area plants and tier‑one and tier‑two suppliers, the practical stakes are straightforward. How courts treat quantity language affects whether suppliers can push for higher prices when markets swing or must keep shipping at long‑term contract rates.
The appellate ruling that triggered Supreme Court review was celebrated by defense counsel as preserving predictability for Stellantis and its vast web of purchase orders, per Greenberg Traurig.
What happens next
With both parties now telling the justices they do not want a ruling, the likely next steps are procedural, not dramatic. The Michigan Supreme Court could take the case off its April argument calendar, dismiss the appeal, or issue a short order that leaves the Court of Appeals decision in place without further comment.
Crain's Detroit Business reported the filings today and noted the absence of any announced settlement. A formal docket entry or order from the court will spell out exactly how the high‑court chapter of this contract fight comes to a close.
