Magee v. Brown

2 Citing cases

  1. In re Spradlin

    274 B.R. 701 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    See Hubbard, 27 Mich. at 19 (indicating that a promise not to compete could be valid if designed "for the protection of the legitimate interests of the party in whose favor it is imposed" (emphasis added)); Boggs, 115 Mich.App. at 739, 321 N.W.2d 794 ("[A] covenant not to compete ... could be lawful if ... necessary to protect the covenantee in the enjoyment of the legitimate benefits of the contract." (emphasis added)); cf. Magee v. Brown, 347 Mich. 638, 644, 81 N.W.2d 413 (1957) ("[A] seller is not allowed to derogate from his own sale.").         The Creditors do not quarrel with the proposition that goodwill is an important consideration in this context.

  2. Devitt v. Quirk

    306 N.W.2d 405 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 5 times

    They further argue that the proofs at most establish a minimal rather than a material breach of the covenant. The reverse side of the "retail-wholesale" definitional issue was considered by the Michigan Supreme Court in the case of Magee v Brown, 347 Mich. 638; 81 N.W.2d 413 (1957). The Court in that case recognized the principle that a seller is not allowed to derogate from his own sale and is not at liberty to destroy what he transferred or depreciate what he sold. There is evidence in this case that the sale of greenware to other dealers at a discount and without charging sales tax was a common course of conduct on the part of the Quirks.