modification waiver in Michigan

1995This Court, in the original appeal, AFL-CIO v Michigan Civil Service Comm, 191 Mich App 535 ; 478 NW2d 722 (1991) (hereinafter AFL-CIO I), ruled that the modification of the rule was within the Civil Service Commission’s authority and did not conflict with §4 of the political activities of public employees act, 1976 PA 169 , § 4, MCL 15.404; MSA 4.1702(4).

1995This Court, in the original appeal, AFL-CIO v Michigan Civil Service Comm, 191 Mich App 535 ; 478 NW2d 722 (1991) (hereinafter AFL-CIO I), ruled that the modification of the rule was within the Civil Service Commission’s authority and did not conflict with §4 of the political activities of public employees act, 1976 PA 169 , § 4, MCL 15.404; MSA 4.1702(4).

2020Many of plaintiff’s parole violations related to his possessing and using marijuana. 1 As a standard condition of his parole, plaintiff was required to “not engage in any behavior that constitutes a violation of any criminal law of any unit of government” and to “not use or possess controlled substances or drug paraphernalia.” Plaintiff sought a modification of this requirement clarifying that he would not be in violation of this condition because he was a qualifying registered patient under the 1 “Although the statutory provisions at issue in this case refer to ‘marihuana’ and ‘usable marihua

2020Many of plaintiff’s parole violations related to his possessing and using marijuana. 1 As a standard condition of his parole, plaintiff was required to “not engage in any behavior that constitutes a violation of any criminal law of any unit of government” and to “not use or possess controlled substances or drug paraphernalia.” Plaintiff sought a modification of this requirement clarifying that he would not be in violation of this condition because he was a qualifying registered patient under the 1 “Although the statutory provisions at issue in this case refer to ‘marihuana’ and ‘usable marihua

2018Id.

2015Even if parties have stipulated that modification of an agreement may only occur by writing, “a modification or waiver can be established by clear and convincing evidence that the parties mutually agreed to a modification or waiver of the contract,” Quality Prods & Concepts Co v Nagel Precision, Inc, 469 Mich 362, 372 ; 666 NW2d 251 (2003), because “the parties possess, and never cease to possess, the freedom to contract even after the original contract has been executed,” id.

2015Even if parties have stipulated that modification of an agreement may only occur by writing, “a modification or waiver can be established by clear and convincing evidence that the parties mutually agreed to a modification or waiver of the contract,” Quality Prods & Concepts Co v Nagel Precision, Inc, 469 Mich 362, 372 ; 666 NW2d 251 (2003), because “the parties possess, and never cease to possess, the freedom to contract even after the original contract has been executed,” id.

2003The theory of the rule is that: “Whenever two men contract, no limitation self-imposed can destroy their power to contract again.” [Citation omitted.] Moreover, the next year, in Banwell v Risdon, 258 Mich 274, 278-279 ; 241 NW 796 (1932), we held that contracting parties are at liberty to design their own guidelines for modification or waiver of the rights and duties established by the contract, but even despite such provisions, a modification or waiver can be established by clear and convincing evidence that the parties mutually agreed to a modification or waiver of the contract.

2003The theory of the rule is that: “Whenever two men contract, no limitation self-imposed can destroy their power to contract again.” [Citation omitted.] Moreover, the next year, in Banwell v Risdon, 258 Mich 274, 278-279 ; 241 NW 796 (1932), we held that contracting parties are at liberty to design their own guidelines for modification or waiver of the rights and duties established by the contract, but even despite such provisions, a modification or waiver can be established by clear and convincing evidence that the parties mutually agreed to a modification or waiver of the contract.

1995This Court, in the original appeal, AFL-CIO v Michigan Civil Service Comm, 191 Mich App 535 ; 478 NW2d 722 (1991) (hereinafter AFL-CIO I ), ruled that the modification of the rule was within the Civil Service Commission's authority and did not conflict with § 4 of the political activities of public employees act, 1976 PA 169 , § 4, MCL 15.404; MSA 4.1702(4).

1984See Hale v Ford Motor Credit Co, 374 So 2d 849, 853 [26 UCC Rep 1383] (Ala, 1979); Fair v General Finance Corp, 147 Ga App 706; 250 SE2d 9 [25 UCC Rep 905] (1978); Universal CIT Credit Corp v Middlesboro Motor Sales, Inc, 424 SW2d 409, 411 [4 UCC Rep 1126] (Ct App, Ky, 1964)." 645 F2d 873.

1984See Hale v Ford Motor Credit Co, 374 So 2d 849, 853 [26 UCC Rep 1383] (Ala, 1979); Fair v General Finance Corp, 147 Ga App 706; 250 SE2d 9 [25 UCC Rep 905] (1978); Universal CIT Credit Corp v Middlesboro Motor Sales, Inc, 424 SW2d 409, 411 [4 UCC Rep 1126] (Ct App, Ky, 1964).” 645 F2d 873.

1981McNames v McNames, 93 Mich App 477, 482 ; 286 NW2d 892 (1979).

1981McNames v McNames, 93 Mich App 477, 482 ; 286 NW2d 892 (1979).

1980Cf. Alan v Wayne County, 388 Mich 210, 285 ; 200 NW2d 628 (1972). 4) In the case of doubt, although I see none, between whether the modification by exception is an "amendment” or a section still operative, though in need of construction with the amending provision, we should lean toward publication.

1980Cf. Alan v Wayne County, 388 Mich 210, 285 ; 200 NW2d 628 (1972). 4) In the case of doubt, although I see none, between whether the modification by exception is an "amendment” or a section still operative, though in need of construction with the amending provision, we should lean toward publication.

1978The validity of the modification of this standard is questioned in People v Bennett, 68 Mich App 446 ; 243 NW2d 15 (1976), and the Court in that case stated that the reasons behind the exception are still valid considerations.

1978The validity of the modification of this standard is questioned in People v Bennett, 68 Mich App 446 ; 243 NW2d 15 (1976), and the Court in that case stated that the reasons behind the exception are still valid considerations.

1970The method of allocating accreted shorelands was stated in Weisenburger v. Kirkwood, supra. Herein a modification of that rule is available because the parties recognize an approximate geographic center of Silver lake and because the lake is nearly circular in shape.

1970We have no doubt that the modification of the rule of caveat emptor that we are now considering will be accepted with like unanimity within a few years.” Wawak v. Stewart (1970), — Ark — ( 449 SW2d 922, 925 ).

1961And we hávé no right to look into the “womb of time” or the “seeds of time” to anticipate a possible doctrine of modification (see Scholle v. Secretary of State, 360 Mich 1, 114 ).

1961If a State court were possessed of such right, it is likely that a portent of re-examination might be found in the newest decisions of the supreme court (see United States v. Brosnan, 363 US 237 [ 80 S Ct 1108 , 4 L ed 2d 1192]; and Acquilino v. United States, 363 US 509 [ 80 S Ct 1277 , 4 L ed 2d 1365]; and United States v. Durham Lumber Co., 363 *289 US 522 [ 80 S Ct 282 , 4 L ed 2d 1371]).

1961If a State court were possessed of such right, it is likely that a portent of re-examination might be found in the newest decisions of the supreme court (see United States v. Brosnan, 363 US 237 [ 80 S Ct 1108 , 4 L ed 2d 1192]; and Acquilino v. United States, 363 US 509 [ 80 S Ct 1277 , 4 L ed 2d 1365]; and United States v. Durham Lumber Co., 363 *289 US 522 [ 80 S Ct 282 , 4 L ed 2d 1371]).

1961If a State court were possessed of such right, it is likely that a portent of re-examination might be found in the newest decisions of the supreme court (see United States v. Brosnan, 363 US 237 [ 80 S Ct 1108 , 4 L ed 2d 1192]; and Acquilino v. United States, 363 US 509 [ 80 S Ct 1277 , 4 L ed 2d 1365]; and United States v. Durham Lumber Co., 363 *289 US 522 [ 80 S Ct 282 , 4 L ed 2d 1371]).

1961If a State court were possessed of such right, it is likely that a portent of re-examination might be found in the newest decisions of the supreme court (see United States v. Brosnan, 363 US 237 [ 80 S Ct 1108 , 4 L ed 2d 1192]; and Acquilino v. United States, 363 US 509 [ 80 S Ct 1277 , 4 L ed 2d 1365]; and United States v. Durham Lumber Co., 363 *289 US 522 [ 80 S Ct 282 , 4 L ed 2d 1371]).

1961If a State court were possessed of such right, it is likely that a portent of re-examination might be found in the newest decisions of the supreme court (see United States v. Brosnan, 363 US 237 [ 80 S Ct 1108 , 4 L ed 2d 1192]; and Acquilino v. United States, 363 US 509 [ 80 S Ct 1277 , 4 L ed 2d 1365]; and United States v. Durham Lumber Co., 363 *289 US 522 [ 80 S Ct 282 , 4 L ed 2d 1371]).

1879Slater v. Breese, 36 Mich., 77 .