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

  • The Private Right of Action Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)5
    Sometimes it is worth reviewing the basics. How is it that an investor can bring a Section 10b-5 claim against a company and/or its officer...
  • Securities Law - The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform And Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”) is a massive revision of the way in which financial services are f...
  • The Dodd-Frank Act Has Expanded SEC Enforcement Powers
    The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act has significantly expanded SEC enforcement powers. All of the expanded powers...
  • Illinois Court Rejects Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim Against Insurance Broker
    Insurance brokers have a fiduciary duty to their clients. However, according to the Illinois Appellate Court, that fiduciary duty only appli...
  • Securities Law - SEC Appeals Adverse Mark Cuban Ruling
    Earlier this year, see below entry of September 18, 2009, the Northern District of Texas dismissed the SEC’s complaint, alleging insider tra...
  • 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...
  • The Sad Tale of Norvergence Illustrates the Unique Law Applicable to Finance Companies
    Most people think that if a product does not work, you should not have to pay for it. This is usually true. It is not true when a finance ...
  • LLC Question - Does The LLC Have To Buy The Interest Of A Departing member?
    CONCORDIA PARTNERS, LLC v. Ward, Dist. Court, D. Maine 2013 - Google Scholar : The typical LLC operating agreement contains a provision gove...
  • Business Debts - The Bankruptcy Court Will Not Discharge A Debt Where The Underlying Loan Was Procured Through Fraud
    In Ojeda v. Goldberg , No. 09-2008, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a determination of the District Court (Judge Gottschall) that a debt was no...
  • Urologists take investment battle to court - Health Care News - Crain's Chicago Business
    Urologists take investment battle to court - Health Care News - Crain's Chicago Business : 'via Blog this'

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