Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc. v. City of Pontiacgreen2 sentences2023For the frustration-of-purpose doctrine to apply, the moving party must meet the following conditions: (1) the contract must be at least partially executory; (2) the frustrated party’s purpose in making the contract must have been known to both parties when the contract was made; (3) this purpose must have been basically frustrated by an event not reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was made, the occurrence of which has not been due to the fault of the frustrated party and the risk of which was not assumed by him. [Id. at 159-160; quoting Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc v City of Pon 2023See Liggett, 260 Mich App at 135 (explaining that the doctrine of frustration of purpose applies only if “the risk of which was not assumed by” the party asserting the doctrine). | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc. v. City of Pontiac
green
2 sentences2024“Frustration of purpose is generally asserted where ‘a change in circumstances makes one party’s performance virtually worthless to the other, frustrating his purpose in making the contract.’ ” Liggett Rest Group, Inc v City of Pontiac, 260 Mich App 127, 133-134 ; 676 NW2d 633 (2003), quoting Restatement Contracts, 2d, § 265, comment a. 2023For the frustration-of-purpose doctrine to apply, the moving party must meet the following conditions: (1) the contract must be at least partially executory; (2) the frustrated party’s purpose in making the contract must have been known to both parties when the contract was made; (3) this purpose must have been basically frustrated by an event not reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was made, the occurrence of which has not been due to the fault of the frustrated party and the risk of which was not assumed by him. [Id. at 159-160; quoting Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc v City of Pon | 3 | 2007–2024 |
Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v. Plante & Moran, PLLC
green
2 sentences2023We agree.3 A. FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE “The frustration-of-purpose doctrine provides an excuse for nonperformance of a contractual obligation.” Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v Plante & Moran, PLLC, 276 Mich App 146, 159 ; 742 NW2d 409 (2007). 2023We agree.3 A. FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE “The frustration-of-purpose doctrine provides an excuse for nonperformance of a contractual obligation.” Rooyakker & Sitz, PLLC v Plante & Moran, PLLC, 276 Mich App 146, 159 ; 742 NW2d 409 (2007). | 3 | 2015–2023 |
Molnar v. Molnar
green
2 sentences2007While the Supreme Court has yet to consider the doctrine, this Court has in Molnar v Molnar, 110 Mich App 622 ; 313 NW2d 171 (1981). 7 The following conditions must be met before a party may avail itself of the frustration-of-purpose doctrine: “(1) the contract must be at least partially executory; (2) the frustrated party’s purpose in making the contract must have been known to both parties when the contract was made; (3) this purpose must have been basically frustrated *160 by an event not reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was made, the occurrence of which has not been due to t 2007While the Supreme Court has yet to consider the doctrine, this Court has in Molnar v Molnar, 110 Mich App 622 ; 313 NW2d 171 (1981). 7 The following conditions must be met before a party may avail itself of the frustration-of-purpose doctrine: “(1) the contract must be at least partially executory; (2) the frustrated party’s purpose in making the contract must have been known to both parties when the contract was made; (3) this purpose must have been basically frustrated *160 by an event not reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was made, the occurrence of which has not been due to t | 2 | 2007–2015 |
Roberts v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
2 sentences2023The doctrine acts to excuse a promisor’s performance under a contract “in the event his or her contractual promise becomes objectively impossible to perform.” Roberts v Farmers Ins Exch, 275 Mich App 58, 73 ; 737 NW2d 332 (2007). 2023The doctrine acts to excuse a promisor’s performance under a contract “in the event his or her contractual promise becomes objectively impossible to perform.” Roberts v Farmers Ins Exch, 275 Mich App 58, 73 ; 737 NW2d 332 (2007). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Wah Chang v. PacifiCorp
green
1 sentence2015Chang, 212 Or App at 40-41 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Irwin v. Irwin
neutral
2 sentences1981However, as noted in Irwin v Irwin, 85 Mich App 576, 578 ; 272 NW2d 328 (1978), and Chisnel this Court will clarify and interpret property settlements only when the substantive rights of the parties are not changed’.” The principles set forth in Paul v Paul, supra, and Ross v Ross, supra, convince us that the application of the frustration of purpose doctrine is both fair and equitable in the circumstances of this case. 1981However, as noted in Irwin v Irwin, 85 Mich App 576, 578 ; 272 NW2d 328 (1978), and Chisnel this Court will clarify and interpret property settlements only when the substantive rights of the parties are not changed’.” The principles set forth in Paul v Paul, supra, and Ross v Ross, supra, convince us that the application of the frustration of purpose doctrine is both fair and equitable in the circumstances of this case. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Paul v. Paul
green
1 sentence1981However, as noted in Irwin v Irwin, 85 Mich App 576, 578 ; 272 NW2d 328 (1978), and Chisnel this Court will clarify and interpret property settlements only when the substantive rights of the parties are not changed’.” The principles set forth in Paul v Paul, supra, and Ross v Ross, supra, convince us that the application of the frustration of purpose doctrine is both fair and equitable in the circumstances of this case. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.