Promissory estoppel; Crown Tech. Park v. D & N Bank, FSB; Principle that courts will only impose contracts in equity if there is no express contract governing the matter; Martin v. East Lansing Sch. Dist.; Effect of integration clauses; UAW-GM Human Res. Ctr. v. KSL Recreation Group; Doctrine of partial performance; Guzorek v. Williams; Fraud in the inducement; Samuel D Begola Servs., Inc. v. Wild Bros.; Belle Isle Grill Corp. v. Detroit; Unjust enrichment; Barber v. SMH (US) Inc.; Principle that a contract cannot be implied in law while an express contract covering the same subject matter is in force between the parties; HJ Tucker & Assoc., Inc. v. Allied Chucker & Eng’g Co.; Sua sponte removal of an attorney of record for purposes of the trial because he was also a witness; MRPC 3.7(a); Smith v. Arc-Mation, Inc.; Kubiak v. Hurr; A citizen’s constitutional right to appear pro per; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 13; Whether any distinction is made between lawyers & other citizens in this regard; Motion to file a second amended complaint; MCR 2.118(A)(2); Boylan v. Fifty Eight LLC; Abandoning an issue due to inadequate briefing; Thompson v. Thompson

The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to grant equitable relief based on promissory estoppel given that there was an express contract governing the matter. Further, the plaintiff was properly granted summary disposition on defendants’ fraud in the inducement and unjust enrichment claims. Assuming that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to allow the individual defendant (an attorney) to try the case, the court concluded that any error was harmless. Finally, defendants failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to file a second amended counter-complaint. Thus, it affirmed the judgment in plaintiff’s favor in the amount of $173,496.90, plus attorney fees and costs. As to defendants’ argument that the trial court abused its discretion in granting plaintiff a directed verdict on their promissory estoppel claim, the court found that a 2006 option to purchase “was a valid written contract governing the subject matter of the controversy and expressly provided that the option” could be exercised at any point during the lease period, with a right to extend. The parties entered into written addendums extending the time for exercise of the option and “retained all of the other terms of the original option to purchase except as modified in the addendums, including the provision that the option to purchase could not be extended except by written agreement” of the parties. “The options also contained integration clauses, which are conclusive evidence that a contract is complete.” As to their fraud in the inducement claim, defendants failed to identify “any representation by plaintiff that was false and that resulted in damages.” As to their unjust enrichment claim, the lease “expressly required a monthly rent of $8,600 for possession of the entire property, and clearly provided that defendants were responsible for all of the operating costs.” While the Michigan Constitution guarantees citizens the right to appear pro per, and makes no distinction between attorneys and other citizens in this regard, defendants did not identify any prejudice resulting from the exclusion of the individual defendant from representing himself.