734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

BUSINESS LAW 14: Plaintiff argues no agreement to arbitrate.

In this contract dispute, Plaintiff is a designer and manufacturer of plastic components that are sold to manufacturers in the automotive industry. Defendant designs and installs manufacturing systems that are used to produce plastic components.

Plaintiff verbally requested a price quotation from defendant for the design and installation of a manufacturing system that was capable of producing plastic components that plaintiff sold to automobile manufacturers. Defendant sent plaintiff a written price quote for the design and installation of the manufacturing system and plaintiff accepted defendant’s offer.

Shortly after defendant installed the manufacturing system, plaintiff began experiencing significant production problems. Plaintiff thereafter filed this action seeking compensation from defendant for damages stemming from the defective manufacturing system. In lieu of answering plaintiff’s complaint, defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), contending that the contract was subject to an arbitration provision.

Plaintiff argues that the parties had no agreement to arbitrate.

To ascertain the arbitrability of an issue, a court must consider whether there is an arbitration provision in the parties’ contract, whether the disputed issue is arguably within the arbitration clause, and whether the dispute is expressly exempt from arbitration by the terms of the contract. As a threshold matter, it must be determined whether there was an arbitration provision in the parties’ contract.

The quote provided by defendant to plaintiff included a provision stating that the offer is based on the General Terms and Conditions of Delivery and Service release of 1st July 2007. The General Terms and Conditions of Delivery and Service can either be seen on our website or be provided on request.

The terms stated if the purchaser’s registered office is located outside the Federal Republic of Germany, defendant is entitled alternatively to choose to have disputes that arise under this agreement or about its effectiveness finally decided by one or more arbitrators appointed by these rules of arbitration.

Plaintiff assented to the terms of the price quotation, and it did not raise any concerns regarding the applicability of the General Terms. Mere failure to read an agreement is not a defense in an action to enforce the terms of a written agreement.

Plaintiff does not present any evidence that an alternative version of the terms and conditions may have been incorporated into the parties’ contract or that an alternative version of the terms and conditions existed at the time of contracting.

In lieu of answering plaintiff’s complaint, defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), contending that the contract was subject to an arbitration provision. The trial court agreed, granting summary disposition in defendant’s favor.

At Aldrich Legal Services, our attorneys offer comprehensive business law services for business owners, shareholders,  and employers.

Many business litigation matters center on complex agreements. Our dedicated lawyers and staff can provide you with the practical corporate and legal guidance you need.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405