To have a valid contract, the parties must have a „meeting of minds“. This means that both parties understood what they agreed on and intended to be bound by it. If you have suffered a breach of contract, it is important that you act quickly to preserve your claim. Michigan`s violation statute of limitations gives you six years to file most infringement claims. If you`ve been wronged by a breach of contract, Michigan civil litigation lawyers at Seikaly & Stewart are ready to help. To prove a breach of contract in Michigan, you must prove that the other party has not materially fulfilled its contractual obligations. However, there are a number of objections to breach of contract that you may need to anticipate. Your lawyer can help you anticipate these defenses and determine the best way to combat them. Judicially created exceptions to the Fraud Act include fair forfeiture, ratification and partial enforcement. It is assumed that someone who signs a contract has read and understood it. McKinstry v Valley OB‐GYN Clinic, PC, 428 Mich 167, 184 (1987). In general, failure to read a contract is not grounds for discharge, unless it is fraud, artificiality or deception.
Moffit v. Sederlund, 145 Mich App 1, 8 (1985). It is not a defense that the party has not read the contract. Montgomery v Fidelity & Guaranty Life Ins Co, 269 Mich App 126, 130 (2005). If a company is a contracting party, it is imperative that the signature block correctly identifies the party signing on behalf of that company. For example, if someone signs as the president of a company, the signature block should look like this: The first thing you need to prove for a breach of contract in Michigan is that a valid contract existed. If the other party attempts to circumvent its obligations, it may argue that the contract contained a loophole that renders it unenforceable. For example, let`s say you hired someone to build you a deck and the contract called for them to use a certain type of material. If the manufacturer has not been able to obtain this material and replace a material of the same quality, this cannot be considered a material infringement. The usual solution to a breach of contract is financial compensation to the une léséed party. All damages that result naturally and reasonably from the breach and that were reasonably foreseeable are generally liable to compensation.
The non-infringing party is also required to take reasonable steps to prevent the damage from being worse than necessary. For example, suppose a homeowner hires a painter to paint his house for $1000. Halfway through the contract, the landlord says he is only willing to pay $900. Unless the contractual obligation is also reduced, the contract is concluded without consideration because the painter must perform the same task with reduced costs. In employment situations, there is an exception to this rule. The courts have held that if an employer announces a change in salary or benefits, if the employee remains, whether in protest or not, he accepts the change. The consideration is the maintenance of employment. McL 600.5815 provides that limitation periods apply equally to all legal and equitable acts, but also provides that „[t]he just doctrine of laughter also applies to actions seeking a fair remedy.“ The use of laches may shorten the analogous limitation period, but never extend it. The doctrine of forfeiture of promissory notes means that: a promise that the promisor should reasonably expect to cause the promisor or a third person to act or refrain from acting or abstaining and that causes such an act or abstention is binding if injustice can only be avoided by the execution of the promise. The remedy granted in the event of non-compliance may be limited in accordance with case law. State Bank of Standish v Curry, 442 Mich 76, 83 (1993), citing 1 Reprocessing Contracts, 2d§ 90, p.
242. In general, the language of a contract must be interpreted against its author. Also known as the contra proferentem rule, the interpretation of a contract against its author to resolve ambiguous language is applicable only if the intention of the parties cannot be determined by the implementation of all treaty rules of interpretation, including an assessment of relevant external evidence. .