Weingartz Supply Company v. Salsco Inc, 310 Mich. App. 226

Weingartz, a retail dealer of grounds-maintenance equipment, bought lawn rollers from supplier Salsco from 2006–2011 and retained unsold inventory and parts.
In summer 2011 Weingartz notified Salsco by phone/email that it would stop selling Salsco products; Salsco refused to accept returns.
Weingartz never sent a termination notice by certified mail; it later sent a notarized letter in September 2012 by regular mail but did not return inventory.
Weingartz sued in Nov. 2012 under the Farm and Utility Equipment Act (FUEA), alleging Salsco violated the repurchase provisions.
The trial court granted Salsco summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) on the ground that FUEA requires dealers to terminate by certified mail to invoke FUEA remedies; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a dealer must terminate an agreement by certified mail to invoke FUEA repurchase/remedies	Weingartz: certified-mail is optional; other forms of termination (phone/email/notarized letter) suffice	Salsco: FUEA mandates dealer termination by certified mail before FUEA remedies attach	Held: Statute’s plain text requires termination by certified mail; Weingartz failed to comply and cannot invoke FUEA

Madugula v. Taub, 496 Mich 685 (2014) (statutory interpretation focuses on plain language and legislative intent)
Fellows v. Mich. Comm’n for the Blind, 305 Mich App 289 (2014) (unambiguous statute must be enforced as written)
MEEMIC Ins. Co. v. DTE Energy Co., 292 Mich App 278 (2011) (summary disposition standard under MCR 2.116(C)(10))
Johnson v. Recca, 492 Mich 169 (2012) (courts should not judicially supply omitted statutory provisions)
Adams v. Adams, 276 Mich App 704 (2007) (decisions of lower federal courts interpreting state law may be persuasive)
Cloverdale Equip. Co. v. Manitowoc Eng’g Co., 149 F.3d 1182 (6th Cir.) (discussion of FUEA’s purpose balancing dealer/manufacturer bargaining power)