Reference no: EM131957869

cIn August 2015, Rodman Corporation was given a $1 billion contract to make engines for Boeing. For this contract, Rodman needed to purchase fifty parts for the engines. Rodman gave to Bond Inc., a subcontract to supply 25 of the 50 parts for the engines. In January of 2016, Rodman was given another contract to make more engines. Rodman solicited bids for fifty more parts for the engines. Bond submitted a bid for all of them but was told by Rodman that the subcontract would be awarded only for items for which Bond was the lowest bidder. Bond’s CEO told Rodman that it would not accept an order for less than fifty more parts for the engines and, a day later, told Rodman that Bond would stop delivery on the current contract unless (1) Rodman gave Bond a con­tract for all fifty parts for the engines and (2) Rodman agreed to a price increase for all of the engine parts under the current contract. A few days later Bond stopped mak­ing deliveries. Rodman tried to find other dealers to supply the engine parts, but none was available. Because of deadlines and liquidated damage clauses (clauses providing for money damages to be paid in the event of delays) in the Boeing contract, plus the pos­sible loss of reputation by Rodman with Boeing, Rodman agreed to Bond’s terms. After Bond’s last delivery, Rodman filed suit to recover the increased prices Bond had charged because the agreement to pay these prices was based on duress. Discuss Rodman’s claim. Explain your answer.