Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 445 / Act 269 of 1974
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1531 (2026)

Liability for damages or rescission; basis of damages.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

FRANCHISE INVESTMENT LAW


Act 269 of 1974


445.1531 Liability for damages or rescission; basis of damages.

Sec. 31.

    (1) A person who offers or sells a franchise in violation of section 5 or 8 is liable to the person purchasing the franchise for damages or rescission, with interest at 6% per year from the date of purchase until June 20, 1984 and 12% per year thereafter and reasonable attorney fees and court costs.

    (2) A person may not file or maintain suit under this section if the franchisee received a written offer before suit and at a time when the franchisee owned the franchise to refund the consideration paid together with interest from the date of purchase at 1 percentage point above the rate provided by subsection (1), less the amount of income received on the franchise, conditioned only upon tender by the person of all items received by the franchisee for the consideration and not sold, and failed to accept the offer within 30 days of its receipt, or if the franchisee received the offer before suit and at a time when the franchisee did not own the franchise, unless the franchisee rejected the offer in writing within 30 days of its receipt. The rescission offer shall recite the provisions of this section. If the franchise involves substantial building or substantial equipment and a significant period of time has elapsed since the sale of the franchise to the franchisee, the rescission offer may recognize depreciation, amortization, and other factors which bear upon the value of the franchise being returned to the franchisor.

    (3) A person who offers or sells a franchise in violation of section 7a is liable to the person purchasing the franchise for damages caused by the noncompliance.

    (4) In a proceeding under this act, damages may be based on reasonable approximations, but not on speculation.

History: 1974, Act 269, Eff. Oct. 15, 1974 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 92, Eff. June 20, 1984 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 1, Eff. Mar. 29, 1990 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 49, Imd. Eff. June 12, 1989

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2024 · leading case: Martino v. Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc., 554 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Martino v. Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc., 554 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “§ 445.1531; M.S.A. § 19.854(31), because Pennsylvania rather than Michigan law controls the franchise agreement.”
Johnson v. QFD, Inc., 807 N.W.2d 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “, liability for damages or rescission, MCL 445.1531(1) — this Court determined that the defendants were left to the statutory remedy and that the plaintiffs violation did not render the franchise agreements void.”
Franchise Mgmt. Unlimited, Inc v. Am.’s Favorite Chicken, 561 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “*249 Section 31(1) of the mfil, MCL 445.1531(1); MSA 19.854(31)(1), barred plaintiffs from bringing a cause of action under § 5 of the mfil, MCL 445.”
Two Men & a Truck/Int'l Inc. v. Two Men & a Truck/Kalamazoo, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 500 (W.D. Mich. 1996). · cites it 2× “3 As such, defendants argue that they are entitled to rescind the Franchise Agreements pursuant to Section 445.1531 of the MFIL. 4 Defendants argue that if the Franchise Agreements are.”
Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Metro Distrib., Inc., 796 F. Supp. 838 (E.D. Pa. 1992). · cites it 3× “Another option provided by Michigan Law, MCL 445.1531(2), is for you to pay Cottman all income received from the Center since the signing of the License Agreement in exchange for the return of the amount you paid to enter into the License Agreement, which in this instance was…”
Banek Inc. v. Yogurt Ventures U.S.A., Inc., 6 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “Various aspects of the MFIL evidence that it represents public policy of Michigan: provisions for enforcement by both public and private actions, Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. §§ 445.1531, 445.-1535; the imposition of joint and several liability of owners, directors, officers, and…”
Gen. Aviation, Inc. v. The Cessna Aircraft Co., 13 F.3d 178 (6th Cir. 1993). “Mich.Comp.Laws § 445.1531, Mich.Stat.Ann.”
Dynamic Enter., Inc. v. Fitness World of Jackson, Inc. (In Re Dynamic Enter., Inc.), 32 B.R. 509 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1983). “The defendants have not tendered to the plaintiff the consideration and benefits received pursuant to the contract.”
Maids Int'l, Inc. v. Saunders, Inc., 569 N.W.2d 857 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “MCL 445.1531(1); MSA 19.854(31)(1); see Two Men & a Truck/Int’l, Inc v Two Men & a Truck/Kalamazoo, Inc, 949 F Supp 500 (WD Mich, 1996); Dynamic Enterprises, Inc v Fitness World of Jackson, 32 Bankr 509 (Tenn, 1983).”
Interstate Automatic Transmission Co. v. Harvey, 350 N.W.2d 907 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “” MCL 445.1531(1); MSA 19.854(31X1). Section 32 imposed the responsibility on Interstate to ensure delivery of the prospectus.”
Brian Lofgren v. AirTrona Canada, 677 F. App'x 1002 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1531 . In accordance with the findings the court entered a judgment holding Barberio and AirTrona Canada jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff in the amount of $82,757.”
Red Fit LLC v. Red Effect Int'l Franchise LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “” MCL 445.1531(1). The California law is similar and provides: It is unlawful to sell any franchise in this state that is subject to registration under this law without first providing to the prospective franchisee, at least 14 days prior to the execution by the prospective…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1531(1) — 6 cases
Martino v. Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc., 554 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “§ 445.1531; M.S.A. § 19.854(31), because Pennsylvania rather than Michigan law controls the franchise agreement.”
Johnson v. QFD, Inc., 807 N.W.2d 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “, liability for damages or rescission, MCL 445.1531(1) — this Court determined that the defendants were left to the statutory remedy and that the plaintiffs violation did not render the franchise agreements void.”
Franchise Mgmt. Unlimited, Inc v. Am.’s Favorite Chicken, 561 N.W.2d 123 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “*249 Section 31(1) of the mfil, MCL 445.1531(1); MSA 19.854(31)(1), barred plaintiffs from bringing a cause of action under § 5 of the mfil, MCL 445.”
Maids Int'l, Inc. v. Saunders, Inc., 569 N.W.2d 857 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “MCL 445.1531(1); MSA 19.854(31)(1); see Two Men & a Truck/Int’l, Inc v Two Men & a Truck/Kalamazoo, Inc, 949 F Supp 500 (WD Mich, 1996); Dynamic Enterprises, Inc v Fitness World of Jackson, 32 Bankr 509 (Tenn, 1983).”
Interstate Automatic Transmission Co. v. Harvey, 350 N.W.2d 907 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “” MCL 445.1531(1); MSA 19.854(31X1). Section 32 imposed the responsibility on Interstate to ensure delivery of the prospectus.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1531(2) — 4 cases
Martino v. Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc., 554 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “§ 445.1531; M.S.A. § 19.854(31), because Pennsylvania rather than Michigan law controls the franchise agreement.”
Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc. v. Metro Distrib., Inc., 796 F. Supp. 838 (E.D. Pa. 1992). “Another option provided by Michigan Law, MCL 445.1531(2), is for you to pay Cottman all income received from the Center since the signing of the License Agreement in exchange for the return of the amount you paid to enter into the License Agreement, which in this instance was…”
Dynamic Enter., Inc. v. Fitness World of Jackson, Inc. (In Re Dynamic Enter., Inc.), 32 B.R. 509 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1983). “The defendants have not tendered to the plaintiff the consideration and benefits received pursuant to the contract.”
Interstate Automatic Transmission Co. v. Harvey, 350 N.W.2d 907 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). “” MCL 445.1531(1); MSA 19.854(31X1). Section 32 imposed the responsibility on Interstate to ensure delivery of the prospectus.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.