Posts in Fraud Activity.
Paying the debts of another is complicated business, especially under Michigan’s version of the statute of frauds.
Comments
The conversion of money is one of those things lawyers get wrong, particularly in business litigation.
Despite careful review, fraudulent inducements can jeopardize otherwise well-crafted contracts.
Subscribe
RSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
Topics
- Commercial Liability
- Business Risk Management
- Contracts
- Business Torts
- Commercial Real Estate
- Commercial Loans
- Commercial Leasing
- Bankruptcy
- Fraud Activity
- Cyber Attack
- Risk Management
- Cybersecurity
- Real Estate
- Mortgage Foreclosure
- e-Commerce
- Internet Law
- Tax Law
- Statute of Limitations
- Venue
- Residential Liability
- Zoning and Planning
- Consumer Protection
- e-Discovery
- Clawback
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Non-compete Agreements
- Real Estate Mortgages
- Receiverships
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
- Garnishments
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Unfair Competition
- Insurance
- Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
- Shareholder Liability
Recent Updates
- Rules of the Road for Contract Interpretation
- Minority Owner Oppression Claims, an Introduction
- Freedom to Contract Jeopardized When Fact Finder’s ‘Sense of Fairness’ Becomes Determinative
- Failure to Understand Terms of Personal Guarantee Agreements Will Likely Cost You
- Collateral Estoppel may Apply to Vacated Judgments Post-settlement
- “But he hit me First” Might Work With Mom, but not Necessarily for Defending Breach of Contract Claims
- E-Commerce Sales Tax Enforcement Finally Enters 21st Century
- Exceptions Complicate Res Judicata Doctrine’s Ability to Bar Additional Claims
- Promises to pay Another’s Debts Might fall Within Statute of Frauds; Then Again, Maybe not
- I can amend my pleadings, can’t I?