The Michigan Consumer Protection Act provides consumers with protection against many unfair business practices. However, the Act only applies to “the conduct of a business providing goods, property or service primarily for personal, family or household purposes …” The Michigan Court of Appeals has previously ruled that the protections of the Act do not apply to transactions intended primarily for business or commercial purposes.
In the recent case of Edwards v Cape to Cairo, LLC, the Court of Appeals decided that the key is not who entered into the transaction, but rather the true nature of the transaction. In the Edwards case, the plaintiff was planning a trip for himself and several members of his church to Africa. The trip was going to involve both leisure activities and charitable mission work. The plaintiff paid the deposits for the trip through his corporation, and used also the staff of his corporation to make arrangements for the trip. The defendant argued that the case should be dismissed because it had dealt with a corporation. The Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that the true purpose of the planned trip to Africa was personal in nature. The trip had nothing to do with the business of the plaintiff’s corporation. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s corporation was reimbursed for the deposits. The Court of Appeals ruled that the corporation’s role in planning the trip “was done merely for convenience, not for any purpose related to [the corporation], which is an automotive supplier with no ties to Africa. … [T]he trip was planned for members of plaintiff’s family and church, not employees of [the corporation].”
Click here to download a PDF copy of the Court of Appeals Opinion in Edwards v Cape to Cairo, LLC.
This article was written by Mark S. Demorest, Managing Member of Demorest Law Firm.
