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

Michigan Court of Appeals

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

168 N.W.2d 446, 16 Mich. App. 650, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1454

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 1969

DocketDocket No. 5,400

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 168 N.W.2d 446 (Northern Concrete Pipe, Inc. v. Phoenix Sprinkler & Heating Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff filed this action to recover for concrete pipe and supplies shipped to defendant [651]*651at 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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff filed this action to recover for concrete pipe and supplies shipped to defendant [651]*651at 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 N.W.2d 446, 16 Mich. App. 650, 1969 Mich. App. LEXIS 1454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northern-concrete-pipe-inc-v-phoenix-sprinkler-heating-co-michctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack