734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

LITIGATION 6: The terms of the agreement prevails over the course of performance.

This case arises from a contract dispute between plaintiff and defendant. The parties dispute not whether defendant is contractually obligated to pay plaintiff for certain purchases it made from plaintiff, but rather when that payment was due.

In the 10 years preceding this lawsuit, defendant purchased numerous technology products from plaintiff. Defendant’s purchases from plaintiff were commemorated through purchase orders and corresponding invoices. The purchase orders and invoices identified the products purchased and the price, and each invoice indicated that the payment term was net 45, which the parties agree means 45 days, and also included the statement that a service charge at the rate of 1.5% per month (18% per annum) will be charged on all accounts past due. Any account over 60 days from the date of invoice will be automatically placed on credit hold. But according to defendant, this provision of the parties’ agreement was never enforced.

According to defendant, plaintiff would send defendant an invoice when delivering the goods to defendant, and defendant would pay plaintiff after defendant performed an account reconciliation process, which would take anywhere from 67 days to 390 days from the date the invoice was issued. Defendant contends that despite the contract language, plaintiff never considered such payments late and never placed a credit hold on defendant regardless of when defendant paid.

The parties do not dispute that between July 13, 2016, and January 30, 2017, defendant purchased numerous products from plaintiff. According to plaintiff’s complaint, the amount of defendant’s purchases from plaintiff during this period was $490,039.94. Plaintiff contends that although it sent defendant a balance statement reflecting the transactions between July 13, 2016, and January 30, 2017, defendant failed to pay plaintiff.

Plaintiff initiated action against defendant, alleging breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding defendant’s failure to pay plaintiff.

The trial court determined that under the UCC, the express terms of the parties’ agreements prevailed over the course of their performance and course of dealing. Although a course of performance may show that parties have waived a specific contractual term under MCL 440.1303(6), the statute does not similarly provide that a course of dealing may demonstrate waiver.

Although the parties may have developed a course of dealing over their 10-year business relationship in which defendant never tendered payment within 45 days from the issuance of an invoice, MCL 440.1303(5)(a) nonetheless dictates that the 45-day payment term prevails over any course of dealing. Any modification of that term must satisfy the statute of frauds. MCL 440.2209(3). Here, no such written modification exists, and the statute of frauds therefore bars defendant’s argument that plaintiff modified the 45-day payment term.

If you are a business owner facing litigation, obtaining the right legal representation is essential.

At Aldrich Legal Services, you will work with an attorney who has the extensive litigation experience necessary to help you reach an effective resolution that protects your interests.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

FAMILY LAW 50: A Michigan Court has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination when it is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding or within 6 months before the commencement of the proceeding.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY  Plaintiff and defendant have twin sons, but never married.  On August 13, 2008, the Court of Common Pleas Juvenile Division in Montgomery County, Ohio established plaintiff as the legal father of the children and...

When You Should Contest a Will?

Wills usually go through without a problem. Well over 90% of wills have no issue making it through probate. However, there are several grounds you may have to contest a will. As a beneficiary, or someone who would gain from a will, there are legal...

What You Need to Know About Distracted Driving

A great U.S. freedom is the ability to drive the open roads. However, every year there are more than 20,000 car accidents in Michigan. Many of these accidents come from distracted driving and could have been avoided. Distracted driving is such a...

Reasons Your Will or Trust Could be Contested

Everyone reacts in their own way when a family member passes away. Emotions can run high, and people can react more strongly than they normally would. Some family members may feel cheated by what a will or trust grants them leading them to contest...

Penalties For Driving Without Insurance in Michigan

Getting into a car and going for a drive isn’t perfectly safe. Driving on the Michigan roads can be dangerous. Driving those same roads becomes financially dangerous if you drive without car insurance. Between fees, charges, and possible...

PROBATE 36: Undue influence to execute Lady Bird deed.

This probate dispute between siblings arises out of the death of their father. Their father lived alone. In 2013, however, he asked appellee to live with him. She agreed, moving into the home in August 2013. Appellants allege that in the years...

Top 5 Most Common Traffic Violations in Michigan

Staying safe on the roads is in everyone’s best interest. However, keeping yourself or others out of danger is everyone’s responsibility. Getting a traffic ticket ends up costing drivers big time. Traffic tickets and citations cost money...

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