Power Play Intern, Inc v Reddy, No. 325805, 2016 WL 3220325, (Mich Ct App June 9, 2016)
Power Play involved allegations that Defendants unlawfully retained hockey merchandise belonging to Gordie Howe, his family and Power Play International, for Defendant’s own benefit and profit. The parties had previously reached an agreement where Defendants were to return hockey merchandise and memorabilia to Plaintiffs, which Defendants complied with. However, Defendants also submitted an invoice from a shredding company to Plaintiffs along with the delivery of the hockey merchandise and memorabilia. The invoice reflected the destruction of papers, tapes, CDs, and DVDs associated with Gordie Howe.
Defendants claimed that the destruction was consistent with the settlement agreement, whereas Plaintiffs believed that the destruction was a violation of the settlement agreement.
The trial court found in favor of Plaintiffs, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals considered the plain language of the settlement agreement and found that the parties’ prior agreement directed Defendants to permanently erase all sources of digital or electronic copies of materials, but the agreement did not direct Defendants to destroy any property. As a result, the Court found that the shredded items should have been delivered to the Plaintiffs.
Furthermore, the parties’ prior agreement called for the payment of actual costs and attorney fees to the prevailing party in any proceeding to enforce the agreement. Therefore, the Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court decision ordering Defendants to pay over $85,000 in attorney fees and costs to Plaintiffs.
Read more about our expertise in contract law, litigation and appeals, and small business law.
CONTRACT LAW LITIGATION & APPEALS SMALL BUSINESS LAWAbout the Author
