734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

CONTRACT 15: The court held that the plaintiff received the benefit of his bargain with defendant. Thus, the trial court did not err when it granted defendant summary disposition as to his breach-of-contract claim.

Plaintiff contracted with Defendant for the installation of a geothermal heating and cooling unit for a home he was constructing. Plaintiff brought suit under theories of breach of contract and negligence—among other causes of action not relevant to this appeal— claiming that defendants had agreed to install a 5-ton unit and failed to do so, and claiming that the NVV048A unit did not properly heat his home. Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim was without merit because plaintiff received a geothermal unit with a 5-ton heating capacity, which is the deal that plaintiff bargained for. The court concluded that the contract between plaintiff and defendants contained a latent ambiguity with respect to defendants’ reference to the size of the NVV048A as a 5-ton unit. In the trial court’s view, it was ambiguous whether the notation referred to the unit’s heating or cooling capacity. In any event, the court concluded that defendants had installed the exact model for which plaintiff had bargained, and that plaintiff had presented no evidence to support his suggestion that the unit did not function as expected. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary disposition, and this appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. We review motions “brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) by considering the pleadings, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” “Summary disposition is appropriate . . . if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” We also review the interpretation of a contract as a question of law reviewed de novo, “including whether the language of a contract is ambiguous and requires resolution by the trier of fact.”

BREACH OF CONTRACT

Plaintiff first contends that the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition in defendants’ favor as to plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim. Specifically, plaintiff contends the contract required installation of a 5-ton geothermal unit, and defendants installed a 4-ton unit, thereby breaching the contract. As noted, the trial court concluded the contract was ambiguous with respect to whether the notation in the contract to a 5-ton size referred to the NVV048A’s heating or cooling capacity. With reference to extrinsic evidence, the court found that the parties intended to install a geothermal unit that produced a 5-ton heating capacity, which is, in fact, what defendants installed. We can discern no error from the trial court’s finding. “A valid contract requires five elements: (1) parties competent to contract, (2) a proper subject matter, (3) legal consideration, (4) mutuality of agreement, and (5) mutuality of obligation.”). Consideration of extrinsic evidence is generally not permitted to interpret an unambiguous contract.). If a contract is ambiguous, however, extrinsic evidence is permitted to assist the trial court to determine the intent of the parties. Contract ambiguities are either patent or latent. “[E]xtrinsic evidence may not be used to identify a patent ambiguity because a patent ambiguity appears from the face of the document. However, extrinsic evidence may be used to show that a latent ambiguity exists.”  A latent ambiguity exists when the language in a contract appears to be clear and intelligible and suggests a single meaning, but other facts create the necessity for interpretation or a choice among two or more possible meanings. To verify the existence of a latent ambiguity, a court must examine the extrinsic evidence presented and determine if in fact that evidence supports an argument that the contract language at issue, under the circumstances of its formation, is susceptible to more than one interpretation. Then, if a latent ambiguity is found to exist, a court must examine the extrinsic evidence again to ascertain the meaning of the contract language at issue. We agree with the trial court that a latent ambiguity existed with respect to the designation of the NVV048A as a 5-ton unit in the parties’ contract. The contract refers to the NVV048A as having a “5 TON” size, but it is unclear in the contract whether the notation refers to the heating or cooling capacity of the NVV048A, or whether it simply refers to the nomenclature of the manufacturer. What is uncontroverted, however, is that the unit installed in plaintiff’s house had a 4-ton cooling capacity and a 5-ton heating capacity, which, according to defendants’ unrebutted heat-loss analysis, was what was needed to satisfy plaintiff’s heating and cooling needs. Evidence presented in the lower court suggests that plaintiff at one time understood this difference. In an email exchange between plaintiff and Carpenter, plaintiff inquired whether a 4-ton unit would suffice for his home, and Carpenter responded that “a 5 ton is what is needed to heat your home, this is what was quote [sic] on the list you sent.” In our opinion, the extrinsic evidence demonstrated the parties’ intent was to install a unit that would heat and cool plaintiff’s house efficiently, and Carpenter explained that the NVV048A would do so on the basis of its 5-ton heating capacity.

CONCLUSION

We see no error in the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff intended to contract for a geothermal unit with a 5-ton heating capacity, and that plaintiff did, in fact, receive that unit. Plaintiff received the benefit of his bargain with defendants, and the trial court did not err when it granted summary disposition in defendants’ favor as to plaintiff’s breach-of-contract claim

PUT OUR CONTRACT LAW EXPERIENCE TO WORK FOR YOU

When you are involved in a dispute over a contract, it is important to secure effective legal representation. As a client of Aldrich Legal Services, you will benefit from working with Michigan contract lawyers who have experience in litigating contract matters.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

Speak to a Pro: (734) 404-3000

 

PROBATE 42: Dissolution of professional corporation.

This case involves the estate of a doctor whose professional corporation also had to be dissolved upon his death. The personal representative of the estate sold the company’s assets but did not pay off the company’s debts before transferring the proceeds to the estate and distributing them to the heirs.

REAL ESTATE 73: Quiet title action.

This case involves a dispute over real property located in Michigan. W and V who are D’s parents, acquired the property. In 1999, W and V conveyed the property to the Trust, to which W is the sole trustee, via a quit claim deed. At some point...

How Is Alimony Determined In A Michigan Divorce?

Originally posted on 06/22/2018. When filing for divorce in Michigan, you may seek alimony, spousal support, from their spouse whenever they require financial aid. A judge may order your spouse to pay certain alimony. However, it depends...

Is My Conviction Eligible for Expungement?

Originally posted on 10/11/2019. At one point or another, we have all made mistakes. For some people, those mistakes involved breaking the law. Convictions have a large impact on someone’s life. Beyond the sentencing ranging from...

PROBATE 45: The court held that the probate court did not err by granting summary disposition for Plaintiff, or by denying Defendant’s request for an extension of the discovery period, adjournment of mediation, and issuance of subpoenas and by dismi

This case arises out of competing petitions for probate. On November 19, 2018, Defendant initiated this case by filing a petition for probate, attaching Decedent’s death certificate and purported last will and testament, dated March 9, 2007,...

DIVORCE 57: Holding that the trial court’s factual findings were not supported by the record evidence, and thus could not stand, the court reversed, vacated the portion of the Amended Default JOD ordering defendant to pay $3,325 to plaintiff, and re

Plaintiff first testified that she and defendant purchased the marital home in 1995. At the time the first default judgment of divorce was entered in September 2017, plaintiff had the home appraised. The value of the home was determined to be...

FAMILY LAW 68: The court held that the satisfaction of the statute relating to the termination of parental rights does not necessarily provide clear and convincing evidence in a parenting time dispute that a child will be harmed by reintroduction to

In a separate case, defendant’s parents filed a petition to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights and adopt RM on the ground that plaintiff had been absent from RM’s life for over three years. One month before the petition was...

FAMILY LAW 66: The court affirmed the trial court’s retroactive child support modification as to the second credit to which plaintiff-mother admitted at the referee hearing, and reversed and remanded as to the trial court’s equitable abatement of th

The parties have two children in common, and both children are now adults. The parties were never married, but plaintiff was granted custody and defendant was ordered to pay child support. After the youngest child turned eighteen, defendant sought a...

FAMILY LAW 65: The court held that because the ECE was not altered by the change of school districts, the referee properly applied the preponderance of the evidence standard when reviewing the best interest and parenting time factors.

BASIC FACTS The parties divorced in 2018. Their judgment of divorce provided that plaintiff would have primary physical custody and that the parties would have joint legal custody of the two minor children. The judgment of divorce stated that the...

FAMILY LAW 64: The court reversed the trial court’s order granting joint physical and legal custody of the parties’ children to defendant-father, concluding that the trial court improperly conflated his motion to change custody with plaintiff-mother

The parties divorced in 2013. The judgment of divorce granted mother sole physical and legal custody and ordered that the child’s domicile would remain in Michigan. In 2015, the trial court granted mother’s motion to change domicile,...

5 Common Misdemeanors Affecting People in Michigan

Originally posted on 11/08/2019 There are many different levels of crime and the consequences once someone has been charged with them. One bracket of crimes is known as a misdemeanor. Let’s go over this level of crime and some common...

PROBATE 44: The court held that the probate court did not err by declaring a will executed by the decedent invalid on the basis that she lacked testamentary capacity to execute it and that it was the product of petitioner’s undue influence.

Defendant and Decedent met in August 2017. In approximately November 2017, Decedent began talking constantly about wanting Defendant to take her to see an attorney for the purpose of changing her will. On March 19, 2018, Defendant filed a petition...

Michigan Expungement Law Updates For 2021

There has been a new law regarding expungements for the state of Michigan.  Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed legislation that expands the criteria for expungements related to traffic offenses, marijuana convictions, and minor...

Wills and Trusts

Originally posted on: 02/14/2014 Aldrich Legal Service provides legal advice and representation for residents in Plymouth, Ann Arbor, and Southeast Michigan. We also review recent legal cases to examine what took place and what we can...

REAL ESTATE 68: Holding that plaintiffs-buyers’ allegations of fraud in this case arising from the sale of a residence did not preclude the trial court from granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition based on a release, the court affirmed.

This cause of action arises from plaintiffs’ purchase of a residence from defendant, who had rights in the house under a land contract from co-defendant, the legal owner of the house. Before the house was for sale, in January 2018, an upstairs...

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