Title: Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Liquid Manufacturing, LLC (Opinion - Leave Granted)

State: michigan

Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court

Document:

INNOVATION VENTURES v LIQUID MANUFACTURING 
 
 
Docket No. 150591.  Argued March 9, 2016 (Calendar No. 1).  Decided July 14, 2016. 
 
 
Plaintiff Innovation Ventures, LLC, filed an action in the Oakland Circuit Court against 
defendants Liquid Manufacturing, LLC; K & L Development, LLC; LXR Biotech, LLC; Eternal 
Energy, LLC; Andrew Krause; and Peter Paisley.  Krause was the managing member of K & L 
Development.  Paisley was the president and CEO of Liquid Manufacturing.  Krause and Paisley 
together founded LXR Biotech and Eternal Energy.  In 2007, Innovation Ventures contracted 
with Krause and K & L Development to design, manufacture, and install equipment to produce 
and package 5-hour ENERGY at Liquid Manufacturing’s bottling plant, and Innovation Ventures 
contracted with Liquid Manufacturing to house and operate the equipment designed and installed 
by K & L Development.   In 2009, Innovation Ventures and K & L Development reduced their 
oral agreement to writing (Equipment Manufacturing and Installation Agreement or EMI) and 
entered into a Nondisclosure and Confidentiality Agreement (Nondisclosure Agreement).  
Innovation Ventures terminated the EMI in 2010, shortly after it was reduced to writing, and K 
& L Development ceased business operations sometime in 2010.  Also in 2010, Innovation 
Ventures terminated the manufacturing agreement with Liquid Manufacturing, and Innovation 
Ventures purchased the equipment Liquid Manufacturing used to produce and package 5-hour 
ENERGY. In 2011, Innovation Ventures and Liquid Manufacturing memorialized the 
termination and equipment purchase in a Termination Agreement, which included nondisclosure 
and noncompete provisions and expressly granted permission to Liquid Manufacturing to 
manufacture 36 products using the equipment.  According to the Termination Agreement, Liquid 
Manufacturing was obligated to obtain a nondisclosure agreement from each company associated 
with the production of any of those 36 products.  The nondisclosure provision of the Termination 
Agreement prohibited any of the companies associated with the 36 permitted products from 
disclosing that its product was bottled using the same equipment as was Innovation Ventures’ 
products.  Krause and Paisley sought and received Innovation Ventures’ permission to add 
Eternal Energy to the list of products Liquid Manufacturing could produce using the equipment.  
From that time until it repurchased the equipment in 2011, Liquid Manufacturing used 
Innovation Ventures’ equipment to bottle Eternal Energy.  In 2012, Innovation Ventures 
informed Liquid Manufacturing that Liquid Manufacturing had breached the Termination 
Agreement by producing Eternal Energy and by failing to provide Innovation Ventures with a 
nondisclosure agreement from Eternal Energy.  On the same day it informed Liquid 
Manufacturing of the breach, Innovation Ventures filed its complaint against defendants, 
alleging that Liquid Manufacturing, K & L Development, Paisley, and Krause wrongfully shared 
 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 
Syllabus 
 
Chief Justice: 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
 
Justices: 
Stephen J. Markman 
Brian K. Zahra 
Bridget M. McCormack 
David F. Viviano 
Richard H. Bernstein 
Joan L. Larsen 
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been  
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. 
Reporter of Decisions: 
Corbin R. Davis 
and used confidential information obtained from Innovation Ventures, and that those defendants 
violated the noncompete agreements by manufacturing, marketing, and distributing Eternal 
Energy and other energy drinks.  Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 
2.116(C)(8) and MCR 2.116(C)(10).  The trial court, Phyllis C. McMillen, J., ultimately granted 
defendants’ motions for summary disposition.  The trial court concluded that there was no 
genuine issue of material fact on the question whether K & L Development and Krause had 
breached their contract with Innovation Ventures.  The court also held that the Nondisclosure 
Agreement between Innovation Ventures and K & L Development failed for lack of 
consideration.  Alternatively, the court held that the noncompete provision in the Nondisclosure 
Agreement was unreasonable, and therefore, unenforceable.  According to the court, the 
noncompete provision in the Termination Agreement was also an unreasonable restraint of trade 
because its purpose was to prevent competition, not to protect a legitimate business interest.  The 
court further held that there was no genuine issue of material fact on the question whether Liquid 
Manufacturing breached the Termination Agreement because Innovation Ventures gave Liquid 
Manufacturing permission to produce Eternal Energy.  The court held that Liquid Manufacturing 
did not breach the confidentiality provisions of the Termination Agreement because Liquid 
Manufacturing had permission to produce 36 different products.  In addition, the court concluded 
that Liquid Manufacturing did not breach the confidentiality provisions of the Termination 
Agreement because Innovation Ventures failed to take any precautions to prevent Krause and K 
& L Development from disclosing their knowledge about the bottling equipment housed in 
Liquid Manufacturing’s facilities.  Innovation Ventures appealed in the Court of Appeals.  The 
Court, STEPHENS, P.J., and TALBOT and BECKERING, JJ., affirmed the trial court’s grant of 
summary disposition to defendants on all claims.  Innovation Ventures, LLC v Liquid 
Manufacturing, LLC, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued October 
23, 2014 (Docket No. 315519).  The Supreme Court granted Innovation Ventures’ application 
for leave to appeal to consider two questions: (1) whether the Nondisclosure Agreement and the 
EMI are void due to failure of consideration, and (2) whether the noncompete provisions in the 
Termination Agreement and the Nondisclosure Agreement are reasonable, and thus, enforceable.  
498 Mich 859 (2015). 
 
 
In a unanimous opinion by Justice MCCORMACK, the Supreme Court held: 
 
 
The EMI and the Nondisclosure Agreement between Innovation Ventures and K & L 
Development, and Innovation Ventures and Krause, were not void for failure of consideration 
because the parties exercised their rights as clearly contemplated by the EMI, and the parties had 
substantially performed their obligations under the contract.  Commercial noncompete 
agreements should be reviewed under the rule of reason with attention to federal cases 
interpreting the rule; the analysis of noncompete agreements between an employer and an 
employee does not apply to noncompete agreements between businesses.   
 
 
1.  The Court of Appeals erred by determining that the EMI and the Nondisclosure 
Agreement were unenforceable because of a failure of consideration.  The EMI and the 
Nondisclosure Agreement between Innovation Ventures and Krause, and Innovation Ventures 
and K & L Development, were not void for failure of consideration.  Failure of consideration is 
an affirmative defense in cases when a party’s performance under a contract is so seriously 
deficient that the contract is rendered worthless or the inducement ceases to exist.  Contracts may 
be void when there is a failure of consideration, and the parties may be permitted to rescind a 
contract under those circumstances.  The agreements in this case were supported by adequate 
consideration—that is, much of the work described in the EMI had already been completed at the 
time the EMI was reduced to writing, and the parties acted in ways contemplated by the EMI and 
the Nondisclosure Agreement.  In fact, Innovation Ventures terminated the EMI by means 
specified in the EMI. 
 
 
2.  The Court of Appeals erred by applying the standard used to consider the validity of 
noncompete agreements between an employer and an employee to the noncompete agreements 
between the parties in this case.  Commercial noncompete agreements between businesses 
should be evaluated under the rule of reason, and federal court interpretations of the rule of 
reason should be given due deference.  The rule of reason considers whether the restraint of trade 
resulting from a noncompete agreement regulates and possibly promotes competition, or whether 
the noncompete agreement suppresses or even destroys competition.  To properly evaluate a 
noncompete agreement under the rule of reason, a court should consider factors including 
specific information about the relevant business involved in the noncompete agreement, that 
business’s condition before and after the restraint was imposed, the restraint’s history, the reason 
it was adopted, its nature, and its effect. 
 
 
3.  There was no genuine issue of material fact on the question whether Krause or K & L 
Development breached the parties’ agreements regarding the confidentiality of information and 
the prohibition against competition; that is, no evidence existed to support Innovation Ventures’ 
allegations that Krause and K & L Development breached the confidentiality or the noncompete 
provisions in the EMI.  The prohibition against competing with Innovation Ventures involved the 
design and production of bottling equipment, not the use of the bottling equipment in this case to 
manufacture a competing energy drink.  Although no genuine issue of material fact existed on 
the question whether Krause or K & L Development breached the confidentiality or noncompete 
provisions in the EMI, there were insufficient grounds to reach the same conclusion about K & L 
Development’s alleged breach of the Nondisclosure Agreement.  Krause was not individually 
liable for any alleged violation of the Nondisclosure Agreement because he signed the agreement 
as the managing member of K & L Development. 
 
 
4.  Innovation Ventures abandoned its claim that Liquid Manufacturing’s production of 
Eternal Energy violated the noncompete provision in the Termination Agreement between 
Innovation Ventures and Liquid Manufacturing.  Innovation Ventures failed to present to the 
Supreme Court any evidence to support its assertion that Liquid Manufacturing breached the 
noncompete agreement by producing Eternal Energy.  However, there is an issue of material fact 
about whether Liquid Manufacturing’s production of energy drinks other than Eternal Energy 
violated the noncompete provision in the Termination Agreement.  
 
 
Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded to the trial court to determine whether 
the noncompete provisions in the Nondisclosure and Termination Agreements are reasonable 
under the rule of reason.  
 
 
©2016 State of Michigan 
FILED July 14, 2016 
 
 
S T A T E  O F  M I C H I G A N 
 
SUPREME COURT 
 
 
INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC, formerly 
doing business as LIVING ESSENTIALS, a 
Michigan Limited Liability Company, 
 
 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 
 
 
v 
No. 150591 
 
LIQUID MANUFACTURING, LLC, a 
Michigan Limited Liability Company, K & L 
DEVELOPMENT OF MICHIGAN, LLC, a 
Michigan Limited Liability Company, LXR 
BIOTECH, LLC, a Michigan Limited 
Liability Company, ETERNAL ENERGY, 
LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability 
Company, ANDREW KRAUSE, an 
individual, and PETER PAISLEY, an 
individual, 
 
 
 
Defendants-Appellees. 
 
 
 
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH  
 
MCCORMACK, J.  
 
 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 
OPINION 
 
Chief Justice: 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
 
 
Justices: 
Stephen J. Markman 
Brian K. Zahra 
Bridget M. McCormack 
David F. Viviano 
Richard H. Bernstein 
Joan L. Larsen 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
In this case, we consider whether agreements between sophisticated businesses are 
void for failure of consideration and whether the noncompete provisions in these 
agreements are reasonable.  Plaintiff Innovation Ventures, LLC, has alleged a variety of 
tort and breach of contract claims against defendants Liquid Manufacturing, LLC, K & L 
Development of Michigan, LLC, Eternal Energy, LLC, LXR Biotech, LLC, Peter 
Paisley, and Andrew Krause based on the defendants’ production of Eternal Energy and 
other energy drinks.  
Contrary to the determination of the Court of Appeals, we conclude that the 
parties’ Equipment Manufacturing and Installation Agreement (EMI) and Nondisclosure 
Agreement were not void for failure of consideration.  We nevertheless affirm the trial 
court’s grant of summary disposition to defendants for the claims against Krause, because 
there is no genuine issue of material fact on the question whether Krause breached the 
EMI or the Nondisclosure Agreement.  Likewise, there is no genuine issue of material 
fact on the question whether K & L Development breached the EMI.  Because questions 
of fact remain regarding whether K & L Development breached the Nondisclosure 
Agreement, however, we vacate the trial court’s grant of summary disposition regarding 
that claim and remand that claim to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with 
this opinion.   
We also hold that a commercial noncompete provision must be evaluated for 
reasonableness under the rule of reason.  We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred 
when it failed to evaluate under this standard the noncompete provision in the parties’ 
Termination Agreement.  We leave undisturbed, however, the Court of Appeals’ 
 
 
 
3 
determination that Liquid Manufacturing did not breach the Termination Agreement by 
producing Eternal Energy.  
Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals in part, affirm in part, and remand 
to the trial court for consideration of whether the noncompete provisions in the parties’ 
Nondisclosure Agreement and Termination Agreement are reasonable under the rule of 
reason, whether K & L Development breached the Nondisclosure Agreement, and 
whether Liquid Manufacturing breached the Termination Agreement with respect to its 
production of products other than Eternal Energy.   
I.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
A.  AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND  
DEFENDANTS K & L DEVELOPMENT AND KRAUSE 
In 2007, the plaintiff engaged defendants Andrew Krause and K & L Development 
of Michigan (K & L Development) to design, manufacture, and install manufacturing and 
packaging equipment for the production of 5-Hour ENERGY at Liquid Manufacturing’s 
bottling plant.1  The parties operated under an oral agreement until April 27, 2009, when 
they memorialized their oral agreement in the written EMI.  The EMI recitals referred to 
the defendants’ completed work on the production line installed in Liquid 
Manufacturing’s facility and the plaintiff’s desire to engage the defendants in designing, 
manufacturing, and installing additional manufacturing equipment.2  The parties’ oral 
                                              
1 Andrew Krause was the managing member of K & L Development.  He is a founding 
member of Eternal Energy, LLC, and LXR Biotech, LLC, and is the president of LXR 
Biotech, LLC.  
2 While the EMI and the Nondisclosure Agreement described future work, they were 
signed after the parties had completed nearly all the work contemplated in the EMI, 
 
 
 
 
4 
agreement did not include a confidentiality agreement or a noncompete provision; the 
parties added a confidentiality agreement and a noncompete provision when they 
memorialized their agreement in writing.3  As provided in the EMI, the parties were 
permitted to terminate the agreement at any time without cause with 14 days’ written 
notice.  
                                              
including the second production line.  
3 The EMI defined exceptions to confidential information as follows: 
9.4 Confidential Information does not include (i) information in the 
public domain; (ii) information legally acquired from a third party not 
bound to an obligation of confidentiality; (iii) information legally known to 
Contractor prior to the date hereof; and (iv) information required to be 
disclosed pursuant to a valid and enforceable subpoena or court order 
issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.  
The EMI also contained the following noncompete provision:  
10. Exclusivity.  During the term of this Agreement and for a period 
of five years thereafter, within the United States, Canada, Mexico or the 
EU, Contractor shall not design, manufacture, produce or participate 
directly or indirectly in the design or manufacture of any product similar to 
the Equipment with the same or similar purpose of bottling one to four 
ounce bottles of liquid energy shots.  This exclusivity restriction on 
Contractor is in addition to any and all other restrictions imposed on 
Contractor pursuant to the applicable copyright laws of the United States 
and other provisions contained in this Agreement (e.g., paragraph 9.  Non-
Disclosure of Confidential Information).  The Parties specifically 
acknowledge and agree that this exclusivity provision was fully negotiated 
at arm’s length, and takes into consideration many factors, the result of 
which was to create reasonable time and geographic limitations, and to 
clearly define the scope of this provision.  The Parties further agree that the 
terms and provisions of section 9 above, this section 10 and section 11 
below . . . constitute binding stipulations of fact for purposes of Michigan 
Court Rules, Rule 2.116(A)(1) and/or (2).  
 
 
 
5 
On the same day the EMI was memorialized, the plaintiff and defendant K & L 
Development entered into an agreement titled Nondisclosure and Confidentiality 
Agreement (Nondisclosure Agreement).4  Pursuant to the Nondisclosure Agreement, K & 
L Development agreed not to use or disclose information obtained previously, currently, 
or prospectively through its business relationship with the plaintiff.  K & L Development 
also agreed to obtain a confidentiality agreement from each of its employees.  
 
Shortly after entering the EMI and the Nondisclosure Agreement, the plaintiff 
terminated the EMI, which was permitted by the EMI’s explicit terms with 14 days’ 
notice.5  K & L Development subsequently stopped engaging in business in 2010.  
B.  AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND  
LIQUID MANUFACTURING 
In March 2007, the plaintiff contracted with defendant Liquid Manufacturing, 
LLC (Liquid Manufacturing), to produce and package 5-hour ENERGY.  The parties 
                                              
4 Andrew Krause signed the Nondisclosure Agreement in his capacity as the managing 
member of K & L Development.  He was not party to the Nondisclosure Agreement in 
his individual capacity.  We leave undisturbed the trial court’s finding that Krause was 
not individually liable under the Nondisclosure Agreement because he was not bound by 
it.  
The plaintiff argues for the first time in this Court that the Nondisclosure 
Agreement is a modification of the EMI, rather than a separate agreement.  We disagree.  
The plaintiff is correct that in general, “contracts made at [the] same time, between [the] 
same parties, with reference to [the] same subject matter, are to be construed together.”  
Savercool v Farwell, 17 Mich 307, 317 (1868).  Despite being signed at the same time, 
the EMI and the Nondisclosure Agreement were signed by different parties and referred 
to different subject matter.  Moreover, the EMI and the Nondisclosure Agreement each 
contain integration clauses, limiting the ability of the parties to modify the agreements. 
5 Although the parties dispute when the plaintiff terminated the EMI, there is no dispute 
that K & L Development and Krause were provided with the requisite 14 days’ notice.  
 
 
 
6 
subsequently amended this agreement, executing an Amended Manufacturing 
Agreement, which required Liquid Manufacturing to acquire several pieces of production 
equipment necessary to bottle 5-hour ENERGY.  Liquid Manufacturing owned some of 
the equipment, and the plaintiff owned the remainder of the equipment.  The Amended 
Manufacturing Agreement also provided the plaintiff with an option to purchase the 
production equipment acquired and owned by Liquid Manufacturing.  
In April 2010, the plaintiff terminated the Amended Manufacturing Agreement 
with Liquid Manufacturing.  The plaintiff, as provided by the Agreement, then exercised 
its option to purchase the production equipment that Liquid Manufacturing had acquired 
to manufacture 5-hour ENERGY.  The parties memorialized the termination of their 
business relationship and the plaintiff’s purchase of Liquid Manufacturing’s production 
equipment in a new agreement titled Agreement to Terminate and Exercise Purchase 
Option (Termination Agreement).6  The Termination Agreement contained several 
nondisclosure and noncompete provisions, and also explicitly granted Liquid 
Manufacturing permission to manufacture 36 Permitted Products using the equipment.  
As part of the Termination Agreement, Liquid Manufacturing was required to obtain 
from each company associated with a Permitted Product a nondisclosure agreement 
                                              
6 Defendant Peter Paisley is the President and CEO of Liquid Manufacturing and a 
founding member of Eternal Energy, LLC, and LXR Biotech, LLC.  The Court of 
Appeals held that Paisley signed the Termination Agreement in his official capacity and 
was not individually liable under the Agreement.  Since the plaintiff has not challenged 
the Court of Appeals’ holding, we do not upset its decision.  Paisley is not individually 
liable because he signed the Agreement in his capacity as a corporate officer.  See, e.g., 
Wright v Drury Petroleum Corp, 229 Mich 542, 544-545; 201 NW 484 (1924); Archbold 
v Industrial Land Co, 264 Mich 289, 290-291; 249 NW 858 (1933).    
 
 
 
7 
stating that the company would not disclose that its product was bottled using the same 
equipment that had been used to bottle the plaintiff’s products.  The 36 Permitted 
Products were identified in the Approved Manufacturer’s List, which was appended to 
the Termination Agreement.  The plaintiff’s permission to manufacture these products, 
however, could be revoked if Liquid Manufacturing violated any provision of the 
Termination Agreement and failed to cure the violation within 30 days.   
C.  FORMATION OF ETERNAL ENERGY AND LXR BIOTECH 
In September 2010, the defendants, Andrew Krause, former managing member of 
K & L Development, and Peter Paisley, CEO and President of Liquid Manufacturing, 
formed Eternal Energy, LLC, to produce the energy shot, Eternal Energy.  On September 
20, 2010, Liquid Manufacturing sought the plaintiff’s permission to add Eternal Energy 
to the Approved Manufacturer’s List.  On the following day, the plaintiff provided its 
permission to add Eternal Energy to the Approved Manufacturer’s List.  Andrew Krause 
and Peter Paisley then formed LXR Biotech, LLC, to market and distribute Eternal 
Energy. 
From September 2010 until March 2011, Liquid Manufacturing used the 
plaintiff’s equipment to bottle Eternal Energy.7  Liquid Manufacturing purchased the 
equipment back from the plaintiff in March 2011 and continued production of Eternal 
                                              
7 The Termination Agreement granted Liquid Manufacturing the option to purchase the 
equipment back from the plaintiff, which it exercised in March 2011.  The noncompete 
provision, which prohibited Liquid Manufacturing from producing non-Permitted 
Products on the equipment for three years, was not affected by Liquid Manufacturing’s 
purchase of the equipment. 
 
 
 
8 
Energy.  On January 27, 2012, the plaintiff informed Liquid Manufacturing that it had 
breached the Termination Agreement by producing Eternal Energy and by failing to 
provide the plaintiff with the necessary nondisclosure agreement from Eternal Energy, 
LLC, in which it agreed not to disclose that its product was bottled on the same 
equipment used to bottle 5-hour ENERGY.  The plaintiff demanded that Liquid 
Manufacturing cease disclosing the plaintiff’s confidential information and that it provide 
the plaintiff with the necessary nondisclosure agreement from Eternal Energy, LLC.  
Liquid Manufacturing provided the nondisclosure agreement from Eternal Energy, LLC, 
within the Termination Agreement’s prescribed 30-day window to cure any breach. 
D.  PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
On January 27, 2012, the same day that the plaintiff informed Liquid 
Manufacturing that it had breached the Termination Agreement, the plaintiff instituted 
the instant action, alleging several tort and breach of contract claims against the 
defendants.  The plaintiff alleged that defendants Liquid Manufacturing, Peter Paisley, K 
& L Development, and Andrew Krause wrongfully shared and used confidential 
information and violated their noncompete agreements by manufacturing, marketing, and 
distributing Eternal Energy and other energy drinks.  The plaintiff sought a temporary 
restraining order to stop Liquid Manufacturing’s production of Eternal Energy and sought 
emergency discovery.  The trial court granted the temporary restraining order and the 
request for emergency discovery, and the court also ordered Liquid Manufacturing to 
allow the plaintiff to inspect its facility to determine whether it was manufacturing energy 
shots not approved by the plaintiff or included in the Approved Manufacturer’s List.  On 
 
 
 
9 
January 30, 2012, and February 6, 2012, the plaintiff inspected Liquid Manufacturing’s 
facility and discovered evidence that Liquid Manufacturing had produced Eternal Energy 
as well as a number of unapproved products.8  The trial court lifted the temporary 
restraining order after determining that there was no potential for irreparable harm.  The 
plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint alleging additional violations based on 
the defendants’ production of additional energy drinks. 
The defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and 
MCR 2.116(C)(10).  The trial court initially denied the defendants’ motion on all claims 
except the plaintiff’s claims against Krause and Paisley of tortious interference.  The 
court also allowed discovery to proceed.  After the plaintiff sought additional discovery 
on third parties, the defendants sought to stay discovery while the trial court ruled on 
their renewed motions for summary disposition on the remaining claims.  The trial court 
stayed discovery and subsequently granted summary disposition to the defendants on the 
remaining claims.   
Addressing the breach of contract claims against K & L Development and Krause, 
the trial court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact on the question 
whether the defendants breached the EMI, because the EMI did not have a noncompete 
provision preventing direct competition with the plaintiff, and the EMI did not protect 
information obtained before the EMI was signed.  It further held that the Nondisclosure 
Agreement between the plaintiff and K & L Development failed for lack of consideration.  
                                              
8 The plaintiff alleged Liquid Manufacturing was producing E6, Quick Energy, 
Quencher, 9 Hour Empower, and Perfectly Petite.  It is undisputed that these energy 
drinks were never added to the Approved Manufacturer’s List. 
 
 
 
10 
In the alternative, the trial court held that the noncompete provision in the Nondisclosure 
Agreement was unenforceable because it was unreasonable.  
 
The trial court further held that there was no genuine issue of material fact on the 
question whether Liquid Manufacturing breached the Termination Agreement by 
producing Eternal Energy.  It reasoned that the plaintiff had expressly approved Liquid 
Manufacturing’s production of Eternal Energy and that the only breach alleged—failure 
to provide the plaintiff with the nondisclosure agreement from Eternal Energy—was 
timely cured when Liquid Manufacturing provided the plaintiff with Eternal Energy’s 
executed nondisclosure agreement.  
The trial court also concluded that Liquid Manufacturing did not breach the 
confidentiality provisions of the Termination Agreement because the plaintiff allowed 
Liquid Manufacturing to produce 36 different products using the same equipment used to 
manufacture 5-hour ENERGY, which effectively waived any confidentiality concerning 
the manufacturing process.  The court reasoned that because the plaintiff authorized the 
alleged disclosure to Eternal Energy, Liquid Manufacturing could not have breached the 
agreement by providing information to Eternal Energy, LLC, or LXR Biotech, LLC.  The 
trial court also noted that the plaintiff’s claim that Liquid Manufacturing breached the 
confidentiality provisions of the Termination Agreement could not be sustained because 
the plaintiff failed to take any precautions to prevent Krause and K & L Development, the 
designers of the equipment, from disclosing their knowledge about the bottling 
equipment placed in Liquid Manufacturing’s facilities.  Finally, the trial court held that 
the noncompete provision in the Termination Agreement between the plaintiff and Liquid 
Manufacturing was unreasonable, and therefore unenforceable, because the plaintiff did 
 
 
 
11 
not impose the provision to protect a legitimate business interest.  The court reasoned that 
because the only intent of the Termination Agreement was to prevent competition, not to 
prevent an unfair advantage, the agreement was invalid on its face as an unreasonable 
restraint of trade.  
 
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to 
defendants on all of the plaintiff’s claims.  The panel affirmed the trial court’s grant of 
summary disposition of the breach of contract claims against K & L Development on 
different grounds.  The Court further held that the EMI and the Nondisclosure Agreement 
were unenforceable for a failure of consideration because the plaintiff terminated the 
parties’ business/employment relationship within two weeks of signing the Agreements 
and without providing K & L Development and Krause what they were promised under 
the Agreements.  
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s grant of defendants’ motions 
for summary disposition of the breach of contract claims against Liquid Manufacturing 
and Paisley.  Like the trial court, the Court of Appeals reasoned that there was no genuine 
issue of material fact on the question whether Liquid Manufacturing breached the 
Termination Agreement by manufacturing Eternal Energy; the plaintiff expressly 
approved the bottling of Eternal Energy, and Liquid Manufacturing cured its breach of 
the Termination Agreement by providing the plaintiff with the executed nondisclosure 
agreement from Eternal Energy, LLC, within the time specified by the Termination 
Agreement.  The Court also affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to 
Liquid Manufacturing for its production of any product, reasoning that the noncompete 
provision in the Termination Agreement was unreasonable, and therefore, unenforceable.  
 
 
 
12 
The Court of Appeals evaluated the reasonableness of the parties’ noncompete provision 
in the Termination Agreement under the standard governing noncompete provisions 
between an employer and employee as articulated in St Clair Medical, PC v Borgiel, 270 
Mich App 260, 265; 715 NW2d 914 (2006), and MCL 445.774a.  The Court also held 
that Liquid Manufacturing did not violate the confidentiality agreement provisions in the 
Termination Agreement because the plaintiff expressly agreed to allow Liquid 
Manufacturing to produce 36 Permitted Products on the bottling equipment.  Although 
the trial court had not addressed Paisley’s personal liability, the Court of Appeals held 
that Paisley was not personally liable under the Termination Agreement.  
We granted leave to consider two questions: (1) whether the parties’ 
Nondisclosure Agreement and EMI are void due to failure of consideration, and (2) 
whether the noncompete provisions in the Termination Agreement and the Nondisclosure 
Agreement are enforceable.9  Innovation Ventures, LLC v Liquid Mfg, LLC, 498 Mich 
859 (2015).  
II.  ANALYSIS 
We review de novo a trial court’s grant of summary disposition.  Maiden v 
Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).  While the trial court did not state 
whether it was granting the defendants’ motion for summary disposition under MCR 
                                              
9 The plaintiff did not appeal the portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the 
trial court’s grant of summary disposition to defendants of the plaintiff’s claims of 
tortious interference with contract and business relations, civil conspiracy, 
statutory/common-law conversion, fraud in the inducement, and declaratory relief, and 
therefore, we do not address these claims. 
 
 
 
13 
2.116(C)(8) or MCR 2.116(C)(10), we treat its grant of summary disposition as under 
MCR 2.116(C)(10) because it considered information beyond the pleadings.  “A motion 
under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint.”  Maiden, 461 
Mich at 120.  When evaluating a motion for summary disposition under MCR 
2.116(C)(10), “a trial court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and 
other evidence submitted by the parties . . . in the light most favorable to the party 
opposing the motion.”  Id.  “Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine 
issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 
law.”  Id.  
We review de novo, as a question of law, the proper interpretation of a contract.  
Miller-Davis Co v Ahrens Const, Inc, 495 Mich 161, 172; 848 NW2d 95 (2014).  “Absent 
an ambiguity or internal inconsistency, contractual interpretation begins and ends with 
the actual words of a written agreement.”  Universal Underwriters Ins Co v Kneeland, 
464 Mich 491, 496; 628 NW2d 491 (2001).  When interpreting a contract, our primary 
obligation “is to give effect to the parties’ intention at the time they entered into the 
contract.”  Miller-Davis Co, 495 Mich at 174.  To do so, we examine “the language of the 
contract according to its plain and ordinary meaning.”  Id.  “If the contractual language is 
unambiguous, courts must interpret and enforce the contract as written . . . .”  In re 
Egbert R Smith Trust, 480 Mich 19, 24; 745 NW2d 754 (2008).  Reasonableness of a 
noncompete agreement is inherently fact-specific, see, e.g., Woodward v Cadillac 
Overall Supply Co, 396 Mich 379, 391; 240 NW2d 710 (1976), but, “[t]he 
reasonableness of a noncompetition provision is a question of law when the relevant facts 
are undisputed.”  Coates v Bastian Brothers, Inc, 276 Mich App 498, 506; 741 NW2d 
 
 
 
14 
539 (2007); see also Follmer, Rudzewicz & Co, PC v Kosco, 420 Mich 394, 408; 362 
NW2d 676 (1984) (“The courts thus must scrutinize such agreements and enforce them 
only to the extent they are reasonable.”).   
A.  CONSIDERATION  
We turn first to the Court of Appeals’ determination that the EMI and the 
Nondisclosure Agreement were unenforceable for failure of consideration.  “A valid 
contract requires five elements: (1) parties competent to contract, (2) a proper subject 
matter, (3) legal consideration, (4) mutuality of agreement, and (5) mutuality of 
obligation.” AFT Michigan v State of Michigan, 497 Mich 197, 235; 866 NW2d 782 
(2015).  “To have consideration there must be a bargained-for exchange”; “[t]here must 
be a benefit on one side, or a detriment suffered, or service done on the other.”  Gen 
Motors Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 466 Mich 231, 238-239; 644 NW2d 734 (2002) 
(quotation marks and citation omitted).  Generally, courts do not inquire into the 
sufficiency of consideration: “[a] cent or a pepper corn, in legal estimation, would 
constitute a valuable consideration.”  Id. at 239 (quotation marks and citation omitted; 
alteration in original). 
As an initial matter, the trial court did not make any findings about a failure of 
consideration, but instead held that the EMI and the Nondisclosure Agreement were not 
supported by valid consideration.  We disagree; both the EMI and the Nondisclosure 
Agreement were supported by sufficient consideration.  According to the EMI, Krause 
and K & L Development were to design, manufacture, and assemble production 
equipment for the plaintiff to place in Liquid Manufacturing’s facility.  Once the 
 
 
 
15 
manufacturing line placed in Liquid Manufacturing’s facility was functioning properly, 
Krause and K & L Development were to install a second line in the plaintiff’s Indiana 
facility according to the specifications outlined by the plaintiff.  In exchange, the plaintiff 
was to pay Krause and K & L Development in installments proportionate to the value of 
their work.  In fact, at the time the parties memorialized their oral agreement in the EMI, 
much of the work contemplated in the EMI had already been completed by Krause and K 
& L Development.  Similarly, there was sufficient consideration to support the 
Nondisclosure Agreement between the plaintiff and K & L Development.  In exchange 
for the plaintiff’s acknowledgment that K & L Development wished to continue doing 
business with the plaintiff, K & L Development agreed to the confidentiality and 
noncompete agreements contained in the Nondisclosure Agreement.  
In contrast to a lack of consideration, which relates to the adequacy of 
consideration at the time of the contract’s formation, failure of consideration relates to the 
parties’ performance under the contract.  Failure of consideration is “[a] seriously 
deficient contractual performance that causes a contract’s basis or inducement to cease to 
exist or to become worthless.”  Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed).  In general, failure of 
consideration is an affirmative defense, and the party asserting it bears the burden of 
proof.  See MCR 2.111(F)(3). 
While we have had few opportunities to address this doctrine, generally we have 
recognized a failure of consideration when one party has committed a first, substantial 
breach of a contract, and sought to maintain an action against the other party for a 
subsequent failure to perform.  See, e.g., McCarty v Mercury Metalcraft Co, 372 Mich 
567, 573; 127 NW2d 340 (1964); Kunzie v Nibbelink, 199 Mich 308, 315-316; 165 NW 
 
 
 
16 
722 (1917).10  “[W]hen there is a failure to perform a substantial part of the contract or 
one of its essential items,” the courts have permitted the parties to rescind the contract.  
Rosenthal v Triangle Dev Co, 261 Mich 462, 463; 246 NW 182 (1933).  But failure of 
consideration does not void a contract when the party seeks to void the contract based on 
an event explicitly anticipated in the contract.  See, e.g., Abbate v Shelden Land Co, 303 
Mich 657, 665-666; 7 NW2d 97 (1942). 
 
We disagree with the Court of Appeals’ holding that the EMI and the 
Nondisclosure Agreement were void for a failure of consideration.  The EMI and the 
Nondisclosure Agreement were not void for a failure of consideration because the parties 
exercised their rights as plainly contemplated by the contract.11  To the extent that the 
EMI and the Nondisclosure Agreement contemplated an ongoing business relationship, 
                                              
10 For example, in Sharrar v Wayne Sav Ass’n, 246 Mich 225; 224 NW 379 (1929), we 
held that when subscription fees were collected in exchange for the establishment of a 
local branch, the failure to establish the local branch would constitute a failure of 
consideration.  We noted that when “the establishment of the branch constituted a 
controlling inducement for the subscription,” failure to establish the branch, in breach of 
the agreement, was a substantial failure of consideration.  Id. at 229.  
Similarly, in Gottesman v Rheinfrank, 303 Mich 153; 5 NW2d 701 (1942), we 
held that when a contractor failed to fulfill a promise to remedy defects in a house 
constructed by the contractor, the purchaser could rescind the contract for failure of 
consideration. 
11 In fact, much of the work contemplated in the agreements had already been completed.  
It is unclear from the record whether the plaintiff paid K & L Development and Krause 
for their services.  But it is ultimately irrelevant to our analysis.  Given that K & L 
Development and Krause already completed a significant amount of the work 
contemplated in the agreements, any claim that the plaintiff failed to pay would be 
properly brought as a breach of contract claim, rather than as a failure of consideration 
defense.  See, e.g., Restatement Contracts, 2d, § 235. 
 
 
 
17 
the EMI also contemplated the termination of the Agreement with 14 days’ notice, at any 
time, without cause.  A party seeking to void a contract on the basis of an event 
anticipated by the contract cannot claim failure of consideration.  See id.  Because the 
plaintiff acted within the rights explicitly provided by the contract, the defendants may 
not now claim failure of consideration.12  Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the 
Court of Appeals’ opinion holding that the EMI and the Nondisclosure Agreement were 
void for failure of consideration. 
B.  RULE OF REASON 
We turn next to the Court of Appeals’ analysis of the noncompete provision in the 
parties’ Termination Agreement.  The plaintiff contends that the Court of Appeals 
applied the wrong standard to determine whether the noncompete provision was 
unreasonable.  We agree.  The Court of Appeals erred by applying the standard 
                                              
12 The Court of Appeals’ reliance on Adell Broadcasting Corp v Apex Media Sales, Inc, 
269 Mich App 6; 708 NW2d 778 (2005), and several extra-jurisdictional authorities to 
conclude that terminating a business relationship shortly after entering an agreement 
resulted in a failure of consideration was erroneous.  In Adell Broadcasting, the Court of 
Appeals held that the defendants’ breach of contract claim was the appropriate vehicle, 
not failure of consideration, when the parties’ business relationship continued but the 
plaintiff failed to pay the defendants’ outstanding commissions.  Id. at 14.  And the extra-
jurisdictional authorities cited by the Court of Appeals are distinguishable because each 
case involved at-will employment relationships, not contracts between sophisticated 
business entities as in this case.  See, e.g., Summits 7, Inc v Kelly, 178 Vt 396, 405; 886 
A2d 365 (2005) (holding that continued employment is sufficient consideration to 
support a restrictive covenant not to compete entered after at-will employment has 
started); Brown & Brown, Inc v Mudron, 379 Ill App 3d 724, 729; 887 NE2d 437 (2008) 
(holding that a restrictive covenant not to compete will not be enforced against an at-will 
employee unless the employee has continued employment for a substantial period of 
time).  We decline to address in this case whether failure of consideration applies to at-
will employees who sign a noncompete agreement after at-will employment has started.  
 
 
 
18 
articulated in MCL 445.774a, which is the proper framework to evaluate the 
reasonableness of noncompete agreements between employees and employers.  Instead, 
the Court should have applied the rule of reason to evaluate the parties’ noncompete 
agreement. 
The Michigan Antitrust Reform Act (MARA) governs the contracts at issue in this 
case.  MCL 445.771 et seq.13  MCL 445.772, which governs general agreements, 
provides that “[a] contract, combination, or conspiracy between 2 or more persons in 
restraint of, or to monopolize, trade or commerce in a relevant market is unlawful.”14  
This statutory language is interpreted in light of the long tradition of holding “that a 
contract would not be construed as in restraint of trade unless the restraint was 
unreasonable.”  Staebler-Kempf Oil Co v Mac’s Auto Mart, Inc, 329 Mich 351, 356-357; 
45 NW2d 316 (1951), citing Standard Oil Co of New Jersey v United States, 221 US 1; 
31 S Ct 502; 55 L Ed 619 (1911); People ex rel Attorney General v Detroit Asphalt 
Paving Co, 244 Mich 119; 221 NW 122 (1928). 
                                              
13 MARA was enacted by 1984 PA 274, effective March 29, 1985, in an effort to create 
uniformity in antitrust legislation among the states.  MARA was patterned after the 
Uniform State Antitrust Act promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners 
on Uniform State Laws in 1973.  See MCLA 445.771 et seq., Michigan prefatory note, 
and MCLS 445.771 et seq., Michigan prefatory note.  See also Compton v Joseph Lepak, 
DDS, PC, 154 Mich App 360, 366 n 2; 397 NW2d 311 (1986). 
14 MCL 445.772 is the corollary to § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.  See 15 USC 1 
(“Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint 
of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be 
illegal.”). 
 
 
 
19 
The only statutory guidance MARA provides for assessing the reasonableness of a 
noncompete provision is contained in MCL 445.774a.  MCL 445.774a sets forth the 
factors a court must consider to assess whether a noncompete agreement between an 
employer and an employee is reasonable.15  MCL 445.774a; see also Rory v Continental 
Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 475 n 32; 703 NW2d 23 (2005).  MCL 445.774a does not address 
the proper framework for evaluating a noncompete agreement between businesses.  The 
Court of Appeals relied on St Clair Med, 270 Mich App 260, and Coates, 276 Mich App 
498, two cases involving noncompete agreements between employers and their 
employees, to hold that the noncompete provision in the Termination Agreement in this 
case should be evaluated under the same factors identified in MCL 445.774a.16  Neither 
case, therefore, is instructive here.  But while MARA does not address the standard for 
evaluating a noncompete agreement between two business entities, the statute provides 
                                              
15 MCL 445.774a provides in relevant part:  
(1) An employer may obtain from an employee an agreement or 
covenant which protects an employer’s reasonable competitive business 
interests and expressly prohibits an employee from engaging in 
employment or a line of business after termination of employment if the 
agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, 
and the type of employment or line of business.  To the extent any such 
agreement or covenant is found to be unreasonable in any respect, a court 
may limit the agreement to render it reasonable in light of the 
circumstances in which it was made and specifically enforce the agreement 
as limited.  
16 Because the Court of Appeals held that the EMI and the Nondisclosure Agreement 
were void for failure of consideration, it did not review the trial court’s holding that the 
noncompete provision in the Nondisclosure Agreement was unreasonable, and therefore, 
unenforceable. 
 
 
 
20 
general guidance about where courts should look in the absence of specific rules.  MCL 
445.784(2) instructs courts to look to federal interpretation of comparable statutes: 
It is the intent of the [L]egislature that in construing all sections of 
this act, the courts shall give due deference to interpretations given by the 
federal courts to comparable antitrust statutes, including, without limitation, 
the doctrine of per se violations and the rule of reason. 
In general, federal courts have assessed noncompete agreements between two 
commercial entities under the rule of reason.17  See e.g., Perceptron, Inc v Sensor 
Adaptive Machines, Inc, 221 F3d 913, 919 (CA 6, 2000) (“[t]he legality of 
noncompetition covenants ancillary to a legitimate transaction must be analyzed under 
the rule of reason.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); County Materials Corp v 
Allan Block Corp, 502 F3d 730, 735 (CA 7, 2007) (holding that a noncompete agreement 
between two companies was required to be evaluated under the rule of reason).  When 
applying the rule of reason, a court must “tak[e] into account a variety of factors, 
including specific information about the relevant business, its condition before and after 
the restraint was imposed, and the restraint’s history, nature, and effect.”  State Oil Co v 
Khan, 522 US 3, 10; 118 S Ct 275; 139 L Ed 2d 199 (1997).  The rule of reason has been 
articulated as  
whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps 
thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even 
                                              
17 Similarly, while this Court has not addressed this question since MARA was enacted, 
before that time we regularly evaluated commercial noncompete agreements under the 
rule of reason.  See, e.g., Staebler-Kempf Oil Co, 329 Mich at 357 (holding that a 
noncompete provision in a deed to sell a retail gasoline station was reasonable under the 
rule of reason); Hubbard v Miller, 27 Mich 15, 19-20 (1873) (holding that a contract 
restraining trade should be evaluated under the rule of reason). 
 
 
 
21 
destroy competition.  To determine that question the court must ordinarily 
consider the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied; 
its condition before and after the restraint was imposed; the nature of the 
restraint and its effect, actual or probable.  The history of the restraint, the 
evil believed to exist, the reason for adopting the particular remedy, the 
purpose or end sought to be attained, are all relevant facts.  This is not 
because a good intention will save an otherwise objectionable regulation or 
the reverse; but because knowledge of intent may help the court to interpret 
facts and to predict consequences.  Bd of Trade of City of Chicago v United 
States, 246 US 231, 238; 38 S Ct 242; 62 L Ed 683 (1918).  
We conclude that the parties’ noncompete agreements should have been evaluated 
under the rule of reason.18 
1.  BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AGAINST  
K & L DEVELOPMENT AND KRAUSE 
Because we hold that the EMI and the Nondisclosure Agreement were not void for 
failure of consideration, we must determine whether K & L Development and Krause 
violated the noncompete and confidentiality provisions in the EMI, whether K & L 
Development violated the noncompete and confidentiality provisions in the 
Nondisclosure Agreement, and whether the noncompete provision in the Nondisclosure 
                                              
18 In Bristol Window & Door, Inc v Hoogenstyn, 250 Mich App 478; 650 NW2d 670 
(2002), the Court of Appeals held that the rule of reason should be used to evaluate a 
noncompete agreement between a business and independent contractors.  The Court of 
Appeals properly identified and reasoned that MCL 445.772 codified the rule of reason, 
despite failing to refer to MCL 445.784(2) or to evaluate whether federal courts applied 
the rule of reason under comparable statutes.  Id. at 492, 497-498. 
While the Court of Appeals did not evaluate the reasonableness of the noncompete 
provision in the Nondisclosure Agreement, the trial court held that the noncompete 
provision was unenforceable.  We vacate that holding and remand to the trial court to 
consider whether the noncompete provisions in the Nondisclosure Agreement and the 
Termination Agreement were reasonable under the proper standard.  
 
 
 
22 
Agreement is a reasonable restraint of trade.  We affirm the trial court’s grant of 
summary disposition of the plaintiff’s breach of contract claims against Krause without 
evaluating the reasonableness of the noncompete provision in the EMI because there is 
no genuine issue of material fact on the question whether Krause breached the 
confidentiality and nondisclosure provisions contained in the EMI.  With respect to the 
breach of contract claims against K & L Development, we affirm the trial court’s grant of 
summary disposition regarding any alleged breaches of the EMI, but we remand to the 
trial court the claim that K & L Development breached the Nondisclosure Agreement 
because we cannot say, as a matter of law, that K & L Development did not breach the 
Nondisclosure Agreement. 
We first address the confidentiality and noncompete provisions in the EMI 
between the plaintiff and K & L Development and the plaintiff and Krause.  The plaintiff 
alleges that K & L Development and Krause violated the EMI by sharing confidential 
information with Eternal Energy, LLC, and by producing Eternal Energy.  While the 
Court of Appeals did not address whether K & L Development and Krause breached the 
parties’ agreements, the trial court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact on 
the question whether Krause breached the EMI.  We affirm the trial court’s reasoning and 
hold that the same reasoning applies to K & L Development’s liability under the EMI.  
The EMI defined confidential information as information obtained by the parties after the 
execution of the EMI.  Because the EMI explicitly excluded from its definition of 
confidential information, any information obtained by K & L Development and Krause 
before the execution of the EMI, K & L Development and Krause may only be liable for 
violating the EMI with regard to information obtained after the execution of the EMI and 
 
 
 
23 
shared with Eternal Energy, LLC.  There is no allegation that Krause or K & L 
Development obtained confidential information after April 27, 2009, the date the EMI 
was executed.  
Similarly, the noncompete provision in the EMI only prohibited K & L 
Development and Krause from designing and producing bottling equipment.  It did not 
prohibit the parties from producing a competing energy drink.  There is no evidence in 
the record that K & L Development or Krause designed or produced bottling equipment 
in violation of the EMI’s noncompete provision.  Instead, the plaintiff premises its 
allegations against K & L Development and Krause entirely on their production of 
Eternal Energy on the equipment that they designed, produced, and installed in Liquid 
Manufacturing’s facility.  But using that equipment to produce a competing energy drink 
did not constitute a violation of the noncompete provision.  Accordingly, there is no 
genuine issue of material fact on the question whether K & L Development and Krause 
breached either the confidentiality or the noncompete provisions in the EMI.  
While defendants argue that they are entitled to a ruling as a matter of law that K 
& L Development did not breach the Nondisclosure Agreement, there are insufficient 
grounds for this Court to conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists on that 
question.19  K & L Development allegedly stopped operating in mid-2010, but it is 
unclear from the record precisely when K & L Development stopped conducting 
business.  The plaintiff has alleged that K & L Development breached the Nondisclosure 
                                              
19 As noted earlier, Krause only signed the Nondisclosure Agreement in his capacity as a 
managing member of K & L Development.  We do not disturb the trial court’s finding 
that Krause is not individually liable under the Nondisclosure Agreement. 
 
 
 
24 
Agreement by producing Eternal Energy beginning in September 2010, but it is possible 
that K & L Development was no longer operating after the formation of Eternal Energy, 
LLC.  If that is the case, K & L Development could not have breached the Nondisclosure 
Agreement by producing Eternal Energy or by sharing any confidential information with 
Eternal Energy.  Nevertheless, given the lack of complete discovery in this case, we 
cannot say that no genuine issue of material fact exists on that question, and we remand 
this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  
2.  BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AGAINST  
LIQUID MANUFACTURING  
While the Court of Appeals erred by not evaluating the noncompete provision in 
the Termination Agreement under the rule of reason, it is unnecessary to evaluate 
whether the noncompete provision is reasonable with respect to Liquid Manufacturing’s 
production of Eternal Energy because the plaintiff has abandoned any claim that Liquid 
Manufacturing breached the Termination Agreement by producing Eternal Energy.  
Although the plaintiff made these claims in both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, 
the plaintiff failed to present to this Court any argument on these breach issues, opting 
instead to make conclusory statements in its application for leave to appeal and in its 
briefs to this Court.  “It is not sufficient for a party ‘simply to announce a position or 
assert an error and then leave it up to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for 
his claims, or unravel and elaborate for him his arguments, and then search for authority 
either to sustain or reject his position.’ ”  Wilson v Taylor, 457 Mich 232, 243; 557 NW2d 
100 (1998), quoting Mitcham v Detroit, 355 Mich 182, 203; 94 NW2d 388 (1959); Tyra v 
Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan, 498 Mich 68, 88-89; 869 NW2d 213 (2015).  
 
 
 
25 
The defendants even highlighted the plaintiff’s failure to seek leave to appeal on these 
issues in their response to the plaintiff’s application by noting that the plaintiff had 
abandoned this claim.20  Despite having an opportunity to rebut this claim in its reply 
brief, plaintiff remained silent.  Irrespective of the merits of the claim, we do not address 
it because any argument that Liquid Manufacturing breached the Termination Agreement 
with respect to Eternal Energy has been abandoned.  We thus leave undisturbed the Court 
of Appeals’ holding affirming summary disposition of these claims.  
There is, however, a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Liquid 
Manufacturing breached the Termination Agreement by producing other products.  
Accordingly, we remand to the trial court the plaintiff’s claim that Liquid Manufacturing 
breached the Termination Agreement with respect to its production of other energy 
drinks.  The trial court should consider whether the noncompete provision in the 
Termination Agreement is reasonable under the rule of reason, and whether Liquid 
Manufacturing violated the Termination Agreement by producing energy drinks other 
than Eternal Energy.21 
                                              
20 In their answer to the plaintiff’s application for leave, the defendants argued, “Plaintiff 
has abandoned all other issues and claims.  Thus, the Court of Appeals should be 
affirmed as to summary disposition of Plaintiff’s other claims, including alleged breaches 
of the confidentiality provisions of the agreements among the parties, tortious 
interference, conspiracy, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraud.”   
21 The Court of Appeals also held that the plaintiff abandoned any claim that the 
noncompete provision could be reformed in a manner that would be reasonable.  Because 
we remand to the trial court to determine whether the noncompete provision is 
reasonable, the plaintiff may raise any claims that the noncompete provision may be 
reformed in a manner to make it reasonable.  
 
 
 
26 
III.  CONCLUSION 
We conclude that the parties’ EMI and Nondisclosure Agreement were not void 
for failure of consideration.  The agreements were supported by sufficient consideration 
and sufficient performance to render them enforceable.  We also conclude that 
commercial noncompete agreements should be evaluated under the rule of reason.  
Because there is no genuine issue of material fact on the question whether defendants 
Krause and K & L Development breached the EMI, or that defendant Krause breached 
the Nondisclosure Agreement, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to 
the defendants on these claims.  We leave undisturbed the Court of Appeals’ holding that 
defendant Liquid Manufacturing did not breach the Termination Agreement by producing 
Eternal Energy. 
We remand, however, the remaining claims to the trial court to consider whether 
the noncompete provisions in the parties’ Nondisclosure Agreement and Termination 
Agreement are reasonable under the proper standard, whether K & L Development 
breached the Nondisclosure Agreement, and whether Liquid Manufacturing violated the 
Termination Agreement by producing products other than Eternal Energy.  
 
 
Bridget M. McCormack 
 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
 
Stephen J. Markman 
 
Brian K. Zahra 
 
David F. Viviano 
 
Richard H. Bernstein 
 
Joan L. Larsen