Case Name: NORTHERN CONCRETE PIPE, INC., v. PHOENIX SPRINKLER & HEATING COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-03-27
Citations: 16 Mich. App. 650
Docket Number: Docket No. 5,400
Parties: NORTHERN CONCRETE PIPE, INC., v. PHOENIX SPRINKLER & HEATING COMPANY
Judges: BEFORE: Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and T. M. Burns, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 16
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
NORTHERN CONCRETE PIPE, INC., v. PHOENIX SPRINKLER & HEATING COMPANY
Contracts — Implied Contract — Directed Verdict.
Directed verdict of no cause of action affirmed, where plaintiff, in order to establish an implied contract, had to prove that the person with whom it dealt was the agent of defendant or prove faets from which his agency could be inferred and the record failed to establish the required agency or to establish faets from which the agency could be inferred.
Reference for Points in IIeadnote
3 Am Jur 2d, Agency § 348.
Appeal from Kent, Claude Vander Ploeg, J.
Submitted Division 3 March 4, 1969, at G-rand Rapids.
(Docket No. 5,400.)
Decided March 27, 1969.
Complaint by Northern Concrete Pipe, Inc., a Michigan corporation, against Phoenix Sprinkler & Heating Company, a Michigan corporation, to recover for concrete pipe and supplies shipped to defendant. Directed verdict of no cause of action. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Goldstein & Goldstein, for plaintiff.
Rhoades, McKee & Boer, for defendant.
BEFORE: Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and T. M. Burns, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff filed this action to recover for concrete pipe and supplies shipped to defendant at its request. At the close of plaintiff's proofs, the trial court granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict of no cause of action. In making this ruling, the trial court found that plaintiff's proofs, taken most favorably to plaintiff, did not establish a contract, express or implied, between the parties. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff's theory of liability is implied contract. In order to establish it, plaintiff had to prove that the person with whom it dealt was the agent of defendant or to prove facts from wdiich such agency could be inferred. The record, and this includes the separate record, fails to establish the required agency and fails to establish facts from which the agency could be inferred.
Affirmed with costs to defendant.