MMG Financial Corp. v. Midwest Amusements Park, LLC
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 135
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Midwest Amusements Park, LLC purchased 24 go-karts financed by MMG through Team Hurricane, an MMG–Cameron Motorsports joint venture.
- Gronvall attended a trade show and Midwest meetings where arrive-and-drive program and full-service support were promised by Team Hurricane/Cameron Motorsports; Midwest considered short-term financing.
- A conditional sales agreement for 24 go-karts was drafted showing Midwest as buyer and MMG as financier, but Gronvall never signed it; karts were delivered anyway.
- Gronvall complained that the go-karts underperformed and some failed; he negotiated with MMG to reduce the APR, ultimately creating a Gronvall-signed 12% rate that MMG did not sign.
- By mid-2006 Midwest had not paid MMG; MMG sued for breach of contract; Midwest counterclaimed for breach by MMG and sought a set-off for nonpayment to Cameron Motorsports.
- At trial, the court excluded certain Cameron/CORG emails as hearsay; jury found a contract with 24% APR between MMG and Midwest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether MMG’s summary judgment on Midwest’s counterclaim was correct | Midwest argues MMG breached by not paying Cameron Motorsports. | MMG paid Cameron Motorsports; no breach shown. | Affirmed summary judgment for MMG. |
| whether the CRG email was admissible to support Midwest’s defense | Email shows Cameron’s debt to CRG; relevant to set-off. | Email is irrelevant to MMG’s payment obligation to Team Hurricane. | Email exclusion affirmed; not reversible error affecting substantial rights. |
| whether a statute of frauds or usury instruction was required | Usury/sod should have been instructed. | Finance contract, not sale of goods; statute of frauds not applicable. | No usury or statute-of-frauds instruction required. |
| whether the special verdict form was flawed | Needed contract-element questions. | No objection to form; waived. | No error; issues adequately presented. |
Key Cases Cited
- Eisenstadt v. Centel Corp., 113 F.3d 738 (7th Cir. 1997) (inadmissible hearsay cannot defeat summary judgment)
- Trade Fin. Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., 573 F.3d 401 (7th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment burden-shifting; need genuine issues of material fact)
- Delta Consulting Grp., Inc. v. R. Randle Constr., Inc., 554 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir. 2009) (no material facts; proper summary judgment standard applied)
- ReMapp Int'l Corp. v. Comfort Keyboard Co., 560 F.3d 628 (7th Cir. 2009) (statute-of-frauds applicability in finance contracts)
- Wiebke v. Richardson & Sons, Inc., 83 Wis.2d 359, 265 N.W.2d 571 (Wis. 1978) (corporate veil considerations and corporate separateness)