Plaintiff filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) and (10), requesting that the court foreclose its construction lien and enter judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $213,389.20.
Browse Our Blog for Knowledge on How to Protect Yourself Legally and to See Examples of How We've Achieved Results
Posts in the Business Law category:
In every services contract, there exists an implied duty to perform in a diligent and reasonably skillful workmanlike manner.
Plaintiff supplied technical workers to defendant and retains a percentage of the fees received by the customers for the workers placed with them. The written agreement signed by plaintiff states the following terms regarding compensation: 5%...
Unfortunately, COVID-19 has resulted in many bankrupt restaurants. A lot of restaurants had to close their doors because of the pandemic and the social distancing regulations that were put in place. If your business has not been able to ride this...
CONTRACTS 13: A party who first breaches a contract cannot maintain an action against the other party for his subsequent breach.
In July 2017, the parties entered into an agreement for plaintiff to purchase the assets of defendant, C Corp. The Asset Purchase Agreement stated: On the Effective Date, Plaintiff will submit to C Corp by wire transfer the sum of twenty-two...
This action involves an alleged joint venture agreement between plaintiff, defendant, and non-party R with regard to commercial real property in Detroit. Quitclaim Deed Plaintiff learned from a friend that a large commercial property in...
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...
CONTRACTS 11: Plaintiff contended defendant breached the purchase agreement by failing to pay it as agreed.
Plaintiff contended defendant breached the APA by failing to pay it as agreed despite the achievement of the APA’s benchmarks, by failing to provide periodic reports pursuant to the APA, and by failing to pay commissions on the commercial lines and benefits book.
The question presented by the case is whether the operation of a MMCC at this location complies with Section 61-3-354(b)(1) of the Detroit Zoning Ordinance, which prohibits the BSEED from approving any request for a MMCC where located within a drug-free zone.
BUSINESS LAW 12: Dispute involving the distribution of assets in which plaintiff and defendant were both members of the LLC.
Plaintiff filed for an accounting of the company’s assets, judicial dissolution of the company, and appointment of a receiver.
It would be a wonderful world if people followed through on the agreements they make. There would be less stress, anxiety, and time wasted if people held up their end of a contract 100% of the time. The legal process would run much more smoothly and...
The bankruptcy court is a division of the federal district court. Although state courts are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing federal law, there is no similar obligation with respect to decisions of the lower federal courts.
Plaintiff and defendants agree that there was no writing in this case. Thus, the agreement’s terms determine whether it falls within the statute of frauds.
The second amendment to the lease was not provided to plaintiff during the negotiations.
As of the 2018 election, Michigan voters approved the possession, use, and sale of recreational marijuana in Michigan. The ballot initiative passing sent ripples through Michigan’s marijuana regulatory agency that will impact the current...
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.
The trial court concluded that the agreement for a shortened period of limitations was enforceable and determined that the suit was untimely.
The arbitrator stated that the award document had not included any amount for case-evaluation sanctions and that, in fact, he had not even known the results of the case evaluation until after issuance of the awards.
BUSINESS LAW 9: The open term “best efforts” did not prevent an agreement from being formed due to a lack of a meeting of the minds.
If defendant was concerned about placing any limitations on the performance necessary to satisfy this obligation, he should have included that limitation in the agreement.
BUSINESS LAW 8: Plaintiff awarded attorney fees as a sanction for filing a motion which the court found was disingenuous.
The trial court further awarded plaintiff attorney fees as a sanction for F Company’s filing of the motion to set aside the judgment, which it found was disingenuous.
At arbitration, plaintiff presented a counter claim and alleged that defendant had abandoned the contract, leaving significant portions of the commercial building uncompleted, and further, refused to return to complete the work or perform corrective work.
Based on the testimony, the trial court ordered the dissolution and liquidation of the assets of the LLC. The trial court also directed the LLC to make a distribution to plaintiff, which represented the 49% share owed to him to compensate for defendant’s distribution.
When an employer terminates its pension plan, ERISA liability does not end with the company that actually promised pension payments. Instead, a trade or business under common control of the employer is treated as part of the employer and so incurs liability under ERISA.
It is a fundamental rule of civil procedure in this state that leave to amend pleadings should be given freely.
The subcontracts written by Defendant and signed by Plaintiff unambiguously contemplated that if any disputes related to their subcontract found their way to a courtroom, a jury would not be impaneled to resolve them.
Plaintiff primarily contends that the arbitration panel’s majority incorrectly found that plaintiff bore the burden of proof.
Despite the Release of Claims unambiguous terms, defendants filed complaints against plaintiffs with the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA). Plaintiffs responded by filing a lawsuit.
The “tender back rule” requires that a party may not file a lawsuit asserting previously released claims or repudiate a release unless the party first repays all consideration received in exchange for the release.
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's breach of contract claim and reversed the denial of defendant's motion for summary disposition of plaintiff's remaining claims.
Defendant argued that the trial court should have dismissed plaintiff's remaining claims-unjust enrichment, implied contract/quasi-contract, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty-under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because of the express terms of the LCC...
A court erred in dismissing a breach of contract claim in favor or defendants where a valid lease contract existed between the parties
The court reversed the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiff's breach of contract claim, and remanded for entry of summary disposition in favor of plaintiff on that claim. It affirmed the trial court's grant...
Holding that the trial court properly granted the plaintiff summary disposition because the only alleged consideration for the modification of the parties' agreement fell within the preexisting duty rule and thus, could not be adequate...
Individual who attempted to characterize withdrawal as a loan estopped form arguing it was a distribution for garnishment purposes
The court reversed and remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant-Great Lakes (garnishor). Plaintiff-KBD sued Great Lakes. Great Lakes obtained a favorable verdict that also resulted in an award of costs and...