Northern Concrete Pipe, Inc. v. Phoenix Sprinkler & Heating Co.

168 N.W.2d 446, 16 Mich. App. 650, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1454
Michigan Court of Appeals·Decided March 27, 1969·No. Docket No. 5,400·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff filed this action to recover for concrete pipe and supplies shipped to defendant [651] at its request. At the close of plaintiff’s proofs, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict of no cause of action. In making this ruling, the trial court found that plaintiff’s proofs, taken most favorably to plaintiff, did not establish a contract, express or implied, between the parties. Plaintiff appeals.

Plaintiff’s theory of liability is implied contract. In order to establish it, plaintiff had to prove that the person with whom it dealt was the agent of defendant or to prove facts from wdiich such agency could be inferred. The record, and this includes the separate record, fails to establish the required agency and fails to establish facts from which the agency could be inferred.

Affirmed with costs to defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Northern Concrete Pipe, Inc. v. Phoenix Sprinkler & Heating Co., 168 N.W.2d 446, 16 Mich. App. 650, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1454 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969).

168 N.W.2d 446 (Northern Concrete Pipe, Inc. v. Phoenix Sprinkler & Heating Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hart v. Comerica Bank
957 F. Supp. 958 (E.D. Michigan, 1997)