Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 600 / Act 236 of 1961

Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961

Definitions; determining when commission due; payment of commissions; liability; attorney fees and costs; jurisdiction; contract waiver void; applicability of section.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961


Act 236 of 1961


600.2961 Definitions; determining when commission due; payment of commissions; liability; attorney fees and costs; jurisdiction; contract waiver void; applicability of section.

Sec. 2961.

    (1) As used in this section:

    (a) "Commission" means compensation accruing to a sales representative for payment by a principal, the rate of which is expressed as a percentage of the amount of orders or sales or as a percentage of the dollar amount of profits.

    (b) "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, association, governmental entity, or any other legal entity.

    (c) "Prevailing party" means a party who wins on all the allegations of the complaint or on all of the responses to the complaint.

    (d) "Principal" means a person that does either of the following:

    (i) Manufactures, produces, imports, sells, or distributes a product in this state.

    (ii) Contracts with a sales representative to solicit orders for or sell a product in this state.

    (e) "Sales representative" means a person who contracts with or is employed by a principal for the solicitation of orders or sale of goods and is paid, in whole or in part, by commission. Sales representative does not include a person who places an order or sale for a product on his or her own account for resale by that sales representative.

    (2) The terms of the contract between the principal and sales representative shall determine when a commission becomes due.

    (3) If the time when the commission is due cannot be determined by a contract between the principal and sales representative, the past practices between the parties shall control or, if there are no past practices, the custom and usage prevalent in this state for the business that is the subject of the relationship between the parties.

    (4) All commissions that are due at the time of termination of a contract between a sales representative and principal shall be paid within 45 days after the date of termination. Commissions that become due after the termination date shall be paid within 45 days after the date on which the commission became due.

    (5) A principal who fails to comply with this section is liable to the sales representative for both of the following:

    (a) Actual damages caused by the failure to pay the commissions when due.

    (b) If the principal is found to have intentionally failed to pay the commission when due, an amount equal to 2 times the amount of commissions due but not paid as required by this section or $100,000.00, whichever is less.

    (6) If a sales representative brings a cause of action pursuant to this section, the court shall award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and court costs.

    (7) In an action brought under this section, jurisdiction shall be determined in accordance with chapter 7.

    (8) A provision in a contract between a principal and a sales representative purporting to waive any right under this section is void.

    (9) This section does not affect the rights of a principal or sales representative that are otherwise provided by law.

History: Add. 1992, Act 125, Imd. Eff. June 29, 1992

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Peters v. Gunnell, Inc
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peters v. Gunnell, Inc (2002) michctapp · cites it 26× “Defendant challenges the trial court’s award of damages to plaintiff under the sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL 600.2961, the award on defendant’s countercomplaint, and the award of fees and costs to plaintiff.”
Frank W Lynch & Co v. Flex Technologies, Inc (2001) mich · cites it 8× “[MCL 600.2961; MSA 27A.2961.] The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to amend on the ground that the SRCA "imposes a new duty and provides for a penalty .”
Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement v. Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (2000) mied · cites it 23× “§ 600.2961. The case was tried to a jury and after a five-day trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Plaintiff was owed commissions by Defendant on four sales.”
Linsell v. Applied Handling, Inc (2005) michctapp · cites it 16× “” The jury also found that plaintiff was entitled to statutory penalties under MCL 600.2961 in the amount of $576,000. After the jury was polled, the trial court granted plaintiffs counsel’s request that the jury be asked, “What damages, if any, will Plaintiff suffer from today…”
Klapp v. United Insurance Group Agency, Inc (2003) mich · cites it 4× “MCL 600.2961. 2 for defendant in 1997.2 Plaintiff brought this action, alleging that defendant failed to pay renewal commissions to which plaintiff was entitled pursuant to the vesting schedule in their contract that provided that an agent with seven years of service is entitled…”
Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement, Marketing & Consulting Corp. v. Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (2003) mich · cites it 5× “, to recover unpaid sales commissions and penalty damages pursuant to the Michigan sales representative commission act (srca), MCL 600.2961. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(B), 1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has certified the following question to this Court:…”
Reicher v. Set Enterprises, Inc (2009) michctapp · cites it 7× “Flaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court’s order denying his motion for summary disposition, and granting summary disposition to defendant, in this action seeking penalty damages and attorney fees under the Michigan sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL…”
H J Tucker & Associates, Inc. v. Allied Chucker & Engineering Co. (1999) michctapp · cites it 8× “In this case, *554 we are asked to decide, in addition to other issues, an issue of first impression involving whether MCL 600.2961; MSA 27A.2961 of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), which grants treble damages for an intentional failure to pay commissions to a sales…”
Klapp v. United Insurance Group Agency, Inc. (2004) michctapp · cites it 7× “MCL 600.2961. [Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459 , 461 n 1; 663 NW2d 447 (2003).”
In Re Certified Question From US Ct. of App. (2003) mich · cites it 5× “§ 600.2961. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(B), [1] the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has certified the following question to this Court: What standard is appropriate in evaluating the mental state required for double damages under the Michigan Sales Representative…”
Walters v. Bloomfield Hills Furniture (1998) michctapp · cites it 10× “(4) All commissions that are due at the time of the termination of a contract between a sales representative and principal shall be paid within 45 days after the date of termination.”
Flynn v. Flint Coatings, Inc (1998) michctapp · cites it 11× “§ 600.2961; M.S.A. § 27A.2961, were not available to plaintiffs because the act took effect after plaintiffs' cause of action had accrued.”
Show all 84 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(1)(a) — 3 cases
Peters v. Gunnell, Inc (2002) michctapp “Defendant challenges the trial court’s award of damages to plaintiff under the sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL 600.2961, the award on defendant’s countercomplaint, and the award of fees and costs to plaintiff.”
Joan Higgins v. Larisa Traill Md (2019) michctapp
Estate of Douglas Widmar v. William Beaumont Hospital (2023) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(1)(c) — 2 cases
Larry a Speet v. Sintel Inc (2017) michctapp
Larry a Speet v. Sintel Inc (2017) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(1)(d)(i) — 1 case
Klapp v. United Insurance Group Agency, Inc. (2004) michctapp “MCL 600.2961. [Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459 , 461 n 1; 663 NW2d 447 (2003).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(2) — 4 cases
Reicher v. Set Enterprises, Inc (2009) michctapp “Flaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court’s order denying his motion for summary disposition, and granting summary disposition to defendant, in this action seeking penalty damages and attorney fees under the Michigan sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL…”
Walters v. Bloomfield Hills Furniture (1998) michctapp “(4) All commissions that are due at the time of the termination of a contract between a sales representative and principal shall be paid within 45 days after the date of termination.”
Stonemen Group, Inc. v. Metalforming Technologies, Inc. (2005) mied
Walters v. BLOOMFIELD FURNITURE (1998) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(3) — 2 cases
Reicher v. Set Enterprises, Inc (2009) michctapp “Flaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court’s order denying his motion for summary disposition, and granting summary disposition to defendant, in this action seeking penalty damages and attorney fees under the Michigan sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL…”
Stonemen Group, Inc. v. Metalforming Technologies, Inc. (2005) mied
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(4) — 10 cases
Peters v. Gunnell, Inc (2002) michctapp “Defendant challenges the trial court’s award of damages to plaintiff under the sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL 600.2961, the award on defendant’s countercomplaint, and the award of fees and costs to plaintiff.”
Reicher v. Set Enterprises, Inc (2009) michctapp “Flaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court’s order denying his motion for summary disposition, and granting summary disposition to defendant, in this action seeking penalty damages and attorney fees under the Michigan sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL…”
Flynn v. Flint Coatings, Inc (1998) michctapp “§ 600.2961; M.S.A. § 27A.2961, were not available to plaintiffs because the act took effect after plaintiffs' cause of action had accrued.”
Minicuci v. Scientific Data Management, Inc (2000) michctapp
Walters v. Bloomfield Hills Furniture (1998) michctapp “(4) All commissions that are due at the time of the termination of a contract between a sales representative and principal shall be paid within 45 days after the date of termination.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(5) — 8 cases
Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement, Marketing & Consulting Corp. v. Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (2003) mich “, to recover unpaid sales commissions and penalty damages pursuant to the Michigan sales representative commission act (srca), MCL 600.2961. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(B), 1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has certified the following question to this Court:…”
Reicher v. Set Enterprises, Inc (2009) michctapp “Flaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court’s order denying his motion for summary disposition, and granting summary disposition to defendant, in this action seeking penalty damages and attorney fees under the Michigan sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL…”
Peters v. Gunnell, Inc (2002) michctapp “Defendant challenges the trial court’s award of damages to plaintiff under the sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL 600.2961, the award on defendant’s countercomplaint, and the award of fees and costs to plaintiff.”
In Re Certified Question From US Ct. of App. (2003) mich “§ 600.2961. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(B), [1] the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has certified the following question to this Court: What standard is appropriate in evaluating the mental state required for double damages under the Michigan Sales Representative…”
Linsell v. Applied Handling, Inc (2005) michctapp “” The jury also found that plaintiff was entitled to statutory penalties under MCL 600.2961 in the amount of $576,000. After the jury was polled, the trial court granted plaintiffs counsel’s request that the jury be asked, “What damages, if any, will Plaintiff suffer from today…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(5)(A) — 1 case
Peters v. Gunnell, Inc (2002) michctapp “Defendant challenges the trial court’s award of damages to plaintiff under the sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL 600.2961, the award on defendant’s countercomplaint, and the award of fees and costs to plaintiff.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(5)(B) — 1 case
Peters v. Gunnell, Inc (2002) michctapp “Defendant challenges the trial court’s award of damages to plaintiff under the sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL 600.2961, the award on defendant’s countercomplaint, and the award of fees and costs to plaintiff.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(5)(a) — 1 case
Peters v. Gunnell, Inc (2002) michctapp “Defendant challenges the trial court’s award of damages to plaintiff under the sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL 600.2961, the award on defendant’s countercomplaint, and the award of fees and costs to plaintiff.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(5)(b) — 14 cases
Linsell v. Applied Handling, Inc (2005) michctapp “” The jury also found that plaintiff was entitled to statutory penalties under MCL 600.2961 in the amount of $576,000. After the jury was polled, the trial court granted plaintiffs counsel’s request that the jury be asked, “What damages, if any, will Plaintiff suffer from today…”
Peters v. Gunnell, Inc (2002) michctapp “Defendant challenges the trial court’s award of damages to plaintiff under the sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL 600.2961, the award on defendant’s countercomplaint, and the award of fees and costs to plaintiff.”
Frank W Lynch & Co v. Flex Technologies, Inc (2001) mich “[MCL 600.2961; MSA 27A.2961.] The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to amend on the ground that the SRCA "imposes a new duty and provides for a penalty .”
Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement, Marketing & Consulting Corp. v. Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (2003) mich “, to recover unpaid sales commissions and penalty damages pursuant to the Michigan sales representative commission act (srca), MCL 600.2961. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(B), 1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has certified the following question to this Court:…”
Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement v. Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (2000) mied “§ 600.2961. The case was tried to a jury and after a five-day trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Plaintiff was owed commissions by Defendant on four sales.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(6) — 10 cases
Peters v. Gunnell, Inc (2002) michctapp “Defendant challenges the trial court’s award of damages to plaintiff under the sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL 600.2961, the award on defendant’s countercomplaint, and the award of fees and costs to plaintiff.”
Reicher v. Set Enterprises, Inc (2009) michctapp “Flaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court’s order denying his motion for summary disposition, and granting summary disposition to defendant, in this action seeking penalty damages and attorney fees under the Michigan sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL…”
H J Tucker & Associates, Inc. v. Allied Chucker & Engineering Co. (1999) michctapp “In this case, *554 we are asked to decide, in addition to other issues, an issue of first impression involving whether MCL 600.2961; MSA 27A.2961 of the Revised Judicature Act (RJA), which grants treble damages for an intentional failure to pay commissions to a sales…”
Linsell v. Applied Handling, Inc (2005) michctapp “” The jury also found that plaintiff was entitled to statutory penalties under MCL 600.2961 in the amount of $576,000. After the jury was polled, the trial court granted plaintiffs counsel’s request that the jury be asked, “What damages, if any, will Plaintiff suffer from today…”
Zantel Marketing Agency v. Whitesell Corp. (2005) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(8) — 3 cases
Reicher v. Set Enterprises, Inc (2009) michctapp “Flaintiff appeals as of right the circuit court’s order denying his motion for summary disposition, and granting summary disposition to defendant, in this action seeking penalty damages and attorney fees under the Michigan sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL…”
Walters v. Bloomfield Hills Furniture (1998) michctapp “(4) All commissions that are due at the time of the termination of a contract between a sales representative and principal shall be paid within 45 days after the date of termination.”
Walters v. BLOOMFIELD FURNITURE (1998) michctapp
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(b)(5) — 2 cases
Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement v. Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (2000) mied “§ 600.2961. The case was tried to a jury and after a five-day trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Plaintiff was owed commissions by Defendant on four sales.”
Linsell v. Applied Handling, Inc (2005) michctapp “” The jury also found that plaintiff was entitled to statutory penalties under MCL 600.2961 in the amount of $576,000. After the jury was polled, the trial court granted plaintiffs counsel’s request that the jury be asked, “What damages, if any, will Plaintiff suffer from today…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(d) — 1 case
Marks Management Corp. v. Reliant Manufacturing Inc. (2001) mied
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(l)(a) — 1 case
Dikker v. 5-Star Team Leasing, LLC (2017) miwd
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(l)(c) — 1 case
Peters v. Gunnell, Inc (2002) michctapp “Defendant challenges the trial court’s award of damages to plaintiff under the sales representatives’ commissions act (SRCA), MCL 600.2961, the award on defendant’s countercomplaint, and the award of fees and costs to plaintiff.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(l)(d) — 3 cases
Klapp v. United Insurance Group Agency, Inc. (2004) michctapp “MCL 600.2961. [Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459 , 461 n 1; 663 NW2d 447 (2003).”
Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement v. Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (2000) mied “§ 600.2961. The case was tried to a jury and after a five-day trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Plaintiff was owed commissions by Defendant on four sales.”
Stonemen Group, Inc. v. Metalforming Technologies, Inc. (2005) mied
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2961(l)(e) — 1 case
Klapp v. United Insurance Group Agency, Inc. (2004) michctapp “MCL 600.2961. [Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459 , 461 n 1; 663 NW2d 447 (2003).”
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.