Opinion ID: 848763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the demonstration of waiver in this case

Text: In this case, I would find that a question of fact exists about whether a waiver occurred. [2] Because we are reviewing a summary disposition ruling, we judge the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, plaintiff. Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999). Plaintiff alleges that it repeatedly reported to Rolf Bochsler, defendant's vice-president and chief operating officer, that it was soliciting business for defendant from companies that were excluded from its territory. Defendant knew of plaintiff's efforts, was in a position to benefit financially from them, and repeatedly said nothing to deter plaintiff's efforts. Moreover, defendant accepted without hesitation the money from the sales negotiated by plaintiff to businesses excluded from its territory. While one instance of mere silence fails to evince the course of acts and conduct envisioned in Klas, this case involves more than a single instance of mere silence, defendant's arguments notwithstanding. Plaintiff alleges that it repeatedly informed defendant that it was pursuing extracontractual accounts prohibited by the parties' contract. Not only did defendant know of plaintiff's activities, it knew that they would inure to its financial benefit. Defendant said nothing. Plaintiff relied on defendant's repeated instances of silence and concluded the sales in question. Defendant took the proceeds, but refused to pay plaintiff its commissions. This course of conduct, if proven, could satisfy the standard described in 17A Am. Jur. 2d, causing the contract language that prevented plaintiff from recovering the sales commissions to be treated as waived. Accordingly, I would hold that defendant's alleged behavior created a fact question regarding waiver.