734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

BUSINESS LAW 16: Parties disagreed on whether loan was intended to be payable on demand.

This case arises from an initial stock purchase agreement and a subsequent loan transaction. The parties entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement whereby plaintiffs purchased a 49 percent interest in Company for a payment of $490,000. After the agreement was signed, Plaintiffs discovered that Company owed approximately $170,000 to its creditors, who held liens against Company’s assets that prevented transfer of equipment and inventory to Michigan.

Liens on Assets

Defendant informed Plaintiffs and was amenable to letting Plaintiffs out of the agreement. Plaintiffs, however, wanted to proceed and provided defendant $170,000 to pay the outstanding amounts.

After defendant and Company moved to Michigan, the relationship between defendant and plaintiffs deteriorated and there was disagreement over defendant’s role in the management and operation of Company. Plaintiffs eventually filed against defendant. The parties disagreed whether the $170,000 payment was intended as payment or was intended only as a loan.

Loan Repayment

The goal when interpreting contracts is to enforce the parties’ intent. In this case the evidence established that the loan was not intended to be payable on demand, and that the parties instead contemplated a time period for repayment. Defendant testified that when plaintiffs first offered to pay the $170,000, Defendant told plaintiffs during a phone conversation that the money would be in the form of a loan. Defendant explained that because this was occurring so quickly, he was not thinking about a repayment schedule or a rate of interest and the two did not expressly agree on these terms at the time.

In addition, when discussing the bank drafts, plaintiffs maintained that he did not authorize the 7 percent interest rate, because defendant had already told plaintiffs a that defendant would pay 15 to 20 percent. This testimony also indicates that plaintiffs expected repayment over time with interest, not that he contemplated that the $170,000 was to be a demand loan, in which the principal would be due upon demand.

Trial

In a pretrial ruling, the trial court found that the $170,000 payment was intended as a loan, but further ruled that the terms of the loan should be decided by a jury. At trial, the jury found that defendant was personally liable for the $170,000 loan and determined that the loan was to be repaid over 60 months, with an interest rate of seven percent.

Litigating Business Matters

If you are a business owner facing litigation, obtaining the right legal representation is essential. Many business litigation matters center on financial agreements. At Aldrich Legal Services, you will work with an attorney who has the extensive litigation experience.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

 

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.

CRIMINAL 19: Sentencing guidelines are advisory.

The sentencing guidelines are advisory, and although a trial court must determine the applicable guidelines range and take it into account when imposing a sentence, the court is not required to sentence a defendant within that range.

Basic responsibilities of an executor

Originally posted on 01/11/2017 The emotional toils of dealing with the death of a loved one can be considerably difficult. Nevertheless, perseverance is paramount; especially if you are appointed to be an executor to one’s...

What you need to compliment your will

Originally posted on 02/08/2017 Making end-of-life plans usually end with a will, but they shouldn't. Some believe that simply having a will is enough. However, this post will briefly explain how having other estate planning...

The benefits of home health care providers

Originally posted on 03/22/2017 As we get older or suffer an injury, we need a little extra help. Home health care providers or caregivers can provide the assistance needed to handle your or your loved one's health and safety...

What to know about bail conditions

Originally posted on 03/06/2017 If you have been arrested and are being held on the suspicion that you have committed a particular crime, chances are that the only thing you are thinking about is getting out of jail as soon as possible and...

College students and estate planning

Originally posted on 12/16/2016 With college semesters starting up in Michigan, it may not be so easy to get college students to think responsibly. This time can be especially tough with the need of moving back to school and getting...

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