Bellevue Ventures, Inc. v. Morang-Kelly Investment, Inc.
302 Mich. App. 59
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Bellevue Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Metro Equipment sues Morang-Kelly Investment, Inc. d/b/a Farmer’s Best in Michigan for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
- Plaintiff alleged a contract for sale and installation of used refrigeration equipment at defendant’s Detroit store; defendant allegedly owed $95,700.
- Defendant asserted the equipment was faulty, that Awdish was not an authorized agent, and that Awdish merely gave the equipment to defendant.
- At bench trial, the court awarded plaintiff $90,336.84 based on an informal agreement with Awdish and concluded unjust enrichment.
- Court offset the award by the price paid and allowed credit for some repair costs incurred by defendant.
- On appeal, the court reverses and remands on multiple issues, including questions about pleadings, agency, jury demand, and records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether striking pleadings was error | Metro argued trial court abused discretion. | Morang-Kelly contends improper striking denied defenses. | Reversible error, harmless due to trial on substance. |
| Whether plaintiff had capacity to sue under unjust enrichment | No express contract; unjust enrichment pleaded. | Metro Equipment lacked capacity to sue; no contract. | Threshold unjust enrichment viable; implied contract supports recovery. |
| Whether Awdish was an agent or had apparent authority | Awdish acted as defendant’s agent or with apparent authority. | Awdish not an agent; no binding contract. | Agency/apparent authority supported; defendant liable. |
| Whether the bench trial violated jury trial rights | Jury demand and fee status unclear; trial should be by jury. | Defendant relied on jury demand; right to jury trial. | Remand for evidentiary hearing on jury demand/fee. |
| Remand necessity and procedures for jury demand determination | Record shows payment/demand issues require clarification. | Record deficiencies impede resolution. | Remanded to determine if jury demand was properly filed and fee paid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. Jarvis, 200 Mich App 445 (1993) (abuse of discretion standard for striking pleadings)
- Dumas v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 437 Mich 521 (1991) (unjust enrichment requires inequity and benefit transfer)
- Central Wholesale Co v Sefa, 351 Mich 17 (1957) (apparent authority concept in agency law)
- Bartlett v Sinai Hosp of Detroit, 149 Mich App 412 (1986) (motion in limine abuse of discretion standard)
- In re MCI Telecom Corp Complaint, 240 Mich App 292 (2000) (duty to determine jury rights de novo)