insuranceneeds.in

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Sunday, 13 March 2011

Contract Law - Seventh Circuit Upholds Verdict Based On Oral Contract

Posted on 22:32 by Unknown
MMG FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. MIDWEST AMUSEMENTS PARK, LLC, Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011 - Google Scholar

This case was decided by the Seventh Circuit on January 5, 2011.

The Plaintiff, MMG Financial, brought suit against Midwest Amusements Park, LLC on the ground that Midwest has failed to pay for 24 go-karts that Midwest financed. The go-karts were originally sold by another company, Team Hurricane, but they were financed by MMG Financial. Thus, this is a routine equipment financing transaction. What makes the case unusual is that the parties drafted, but did not sign, a comprehensive written agreement which laid out the terms of the deal.

The sales agreement identified Midwest as the purchaser of the go-karts; MMG Financial as the finance company and Team Hurricane as the dealer. The price was to be $89,502.12 and the balance was to be paid over 24 months at an interest rate of 24%.

Midwest (which did business under the name Gronvall) did not sign the agreement, but it took delivery of the go-karts.

Midwest never made any payments for the go-karts.

MMG filed suit and Midwest filed a counterclaim alleging that MMG had never paid the original vendor of the go-karts.

At trial Midwest disputed that there was a contract. It also argued that MMG breached the contract by failing to pay for the go-karts. The evidence of the breach was an email from a CRG (the manufacturer of the go karts) that MMG had failed to pay for the go-karts. The district court excluded the email on the ground that it was hearsay.

The district court granted summary judgment to MMG on Midwest's counterclaim because Midwest was unable to point to any admissible evidence that MMG had breached the financing agreement. As the Seventh Circuit noted, "the evidence Midwest offered to establish that MMG had failed to pay Cameron Motorsports for the go-karts is classic hearsay...the testimony of its own employees repeating what Cameron Motorsports had told them." The statements were offered "to prove the truth fo the matter asserted, namely that MMG had not paid Cameron Motorsports for the go-karts shipped to Midwest." Slip Opinion at 8. Thus, Midwest was unable to point to any evidence showing that MMG breached the contract.

Comment: the plaintiff was able to prove to the jury that the parties accepted the draft sales agreement, even though it was never signed. This demonstrates that, in a rare case, the failure to obtain the signature on an agreement can be overcome with testimony and proof.

Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in Contract Law | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Corporate Law - LLC Statute Shields Member From Personal Liability
    Carollo v. Irwin, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 4th Div. 2011 - Google Scholar : The Illinois Appellate Court recently decided the above-...
  • Shareholder Derivative Action Dismissed Because Plaintiff Failed To Make A Demand on the Board of Directors
    IN RE HURON CONSULTING GROUP, INC. v. HURON CONSULTING GROUP, INC., Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 2nd Div. 2012 - Google Scholar : This c...
  • Contract Law - Lewitton v. ITA Software, Incorporated (Seventh Circuit 08-3725)
    The Seventh Circuit Holds that An Employer Breached An Employment Contract When It Blocked A Former Employee From Exercising Options To Purc...
  • LLC Operating Agreement Defeats Unjust Enrichment and Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
    WOSS, LLC v. 218 ECKFORD, LLC, 102 AD 3d 860 - NY: Appellate Div., 2nd Dept. 2013 - Google Scholar : The plaintiff LLC was a member of the d...
  • Fraud and Proof of Reliance
    In fraud cases, the plaintiff must prove, among other things, that she reasonably relied on the factual assertion made by the defendant. All...
  • Seventh Circuit Weighs In On Unjust Enrichment Debate
    Cleary v. PHILIP MORRIS INCORPORATED, Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2011 - Google Scholar : The Seventh Circuit recently affirmed the dismis...
  • Appellate Court Upholds Personal Guarantee
    YELLOW BOOK SALES AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, INC. v. Feldman, Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 4th Div. 2012 - Google Scholar : This case, w...
  • Seventh Circuit Approves Securities Class Certification in Conseco Case
    The United States District Court for the Seventh District of Indiana approved class certification for a class of Conseco Investors. (Later C...
  • A Brief Review of Insider Trading Law - Rule 10b-5
    Insider trading law is highly complex. This is a brief summary of the law. Rule 10b-5 1. Insider Trading 15 U.S.C. §78j(b) provides that it...
  • Corporate Law - Dissolved Corporation Lacks Standing To Sue For Claims Arising After Dissolution
    Sometimes a client asks whether a dissolved corporation can bring a lawsuit. The answer is not clear. If the claim accrued before the corpor...

Categories

  • Business Advice
  • Collection Law
  • Consumer Rights
  • Contract Law
  • Corporate Law
  • Creditor Rights
  • Federal Arbitration Act
  • Federal Rules of Evidence
  • Fraud Claims
  • Fraudulent Transfer
  • Insurance Coverage Disputes
  • Internet Collection Scam
  • Limited Liability Company Issues
  • Litigation Issues
  • Moorman Doctrine
  • Mortgage Foreclosure
  • Noncompetition Agreements
  • Personal Jurisdiction
  • Securities Law
  • Shareholder Derivative Actions
  • Too Many Lawyers and Too Many Law Students
  • Uniform Commercial Code

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (27)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (5)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2012 (34)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ▼  2011 (40)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ▼  March (5)
      • Should Dodd-Frank Be Applied Retroactively?
      • Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al v. Siracusano, et ...
      • Contract Law - Repudiation
      • Contract Law - Seventh Circuit Upholds Verdict Bas...
      • First Bank v. UNIQUE MARBLE AND GRANITE CORPORATIO...
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2010 (36)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (5)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2009 (18)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (4)
  • ►  2008 (1)
    • ►  September (1)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile