holding that the broad language used in a settlement sufficed to release all claims because “[t]here cannot be any broader classification than the word ‘all[,]’ ” which “leaves no room for exceptions”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the broad language used in a settlement sufficed to release all claims because “[t]here cannot be any broader classification than the word ‘all[,]’ ” which “leaves no room for exceptions”
- concluding that Michigan law requires privity of contract “for a remote purchaser to enforce a manufacturer’s express warranty ”
- “[0]ur Supreme Court ... has previously held that for some remote purchasers it is unnecessary in actions for breach of implied warranty to establish privity of contract with the manufacturer.” (citing Piercefield v. Remington Arms Co., 375 Mich. 85, 133 N.W.2d 129, 134-35 (1965))
- "If there is no warranty because of a valid disclaimer, there is no problem of limiting warranty breach remedies."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*644 HOEKSTRA, J.
(concurring). Because MCR 7.215(J) requires me to follow Romska v Opper, 234 Mich App 512 ; 594 NW2d 853 (1999), in which this Court adopted the flat-bar rule, I concur with the result reached by the majority. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Romska , I am convinced that the intent rule is the better-reasoned rule and the rule most consistent with Michigan caselaw and statutes. Here, it is apparent from the circumstances that Heritage did not intend for its settlement agreement with Michigan Tractor & Machinery Company to release and discharge its implied warranty claims against Gencor Industries, Inc. In all other aspects, I agree and join with the majority.