Scarlett v. Allen

4 Citing cases

  1. Fournier v. L'Attitude Holdings, LLC

    No. 325459 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    Scholz, 437 Mich at 90 n 7. See also Scarlett v Allen, 295 Mich 694, 703; 295 NW 365 (1940) (quotation marks and citation omitted) ("In order to modify the original contract, the new agreement must have all the requisites of a valid and enforceable agreement, or it will not be binding."); August v Collins, 240 Mich 23, 26; 214 NW 951 (1927) (quotation marks and citation omitted) ("But, while there are some expressions in the cases which seem to dispense with the necessity of a consideration for a modification of a contract, yet a modification can be nothing but a new contract, and must be supported by a consideration like every other contract."). See also Power-Tek Solutions Services, LLC v Techlink, Inc, 403 F3d 353, 359 (CA 6, 2005) ("Michigan courts have universally interpreted section 566.1 as rendering invalid any alleged agreement changing, modifying or discharging a contract where that alleged agreement is neither reduced to writing nor supported by additional consideration.").

  2. Chrysler Grp., LLC v. Eagle Auto-Mall Corp.

    Case No. 14-12964 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 17, 2015)

    In order to amend a written contract under Michigan law, particularly a contract like the LOI requiring amendments to be in writing and signed by a specified person, Eagle must provide clear and convincing evidence that overcomes not only the substantive portions of the contract allegedly amended, but also the specific provision requiring amendments to be in writing. Quality Prods. & Concepts Co. v. Nagel Precision, Inc., 469 Mich. 362, 377 (2003); see Kovacs v. Elec. Data Sys. Corp., 762 F. Supp. 161, 164 (E.D. Mich. 1990) (holding that alleged "oral assurance [was] ineffective as a matter of law" because the contract required approval by specific officers before any modification could become effective, and oral statement was not made by one of the specified officers); Scarlett v. Allen, 295 Mich. 694, 703 (1940) (elements of proving amendment are same as proving existence of contract, including mutual assent); Cloverdale Equipment Co. v. Simon Aerials, Inc., 869 F.2d 934, 939 (6th Cir. 1989) ("[I]n light of a written-modification-only provision, vague assertions of an oral modification fail to raise a genuine factual issue sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion."); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Harris (In re Harris), 474 B.R. 809, 814 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2012) ("A contract modification requires all of the normal requirements of a valid contract . . . ."). In this case, Eagle must come forward with legally sufficient evidence of FCA's assent to the alleged amendments at least to create a genuine issue of material fact as to FCA's agreement to Eagle's alleged modifications to the LOI . The record does not contain such evidence.

  3. Sanders v. Detroit Hous. Comm'n

    22-cv-10269 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 29, 2022)

    Rather, her allegations show that the employee made only “vague, indefinite statements in no instance rising to the dignity of a contract.” See Scarlett v. Allen, 295 Mich. 694, 702-03 (1940) (cleaned up); see also Odom v. Univ. of Mich., No. 16-12791, 2017 WL2117978, at *7 (E.D. Mich. May 16, 2017) (“An employer's vague statements or those ‘couched in general terms, more akin to stating a policy as opposed to offering an express contract' are insufficient to indicate an intent to form a contract for permanent employment.”).

  4. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Harris (In re Harris)

    474 B.R. 809 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    A contract modification requires all of the normal requirements of a valid contract, listed above, including the two elements regarding mutuality. Scarlett v. Allen, 295 Mich. 694, 295 N.W. 365, 369 (1940). “[O]ne cannot unilaterally modify a contract because by definition, a unilateral modification lacks mutuality.”