Whether the trial court’s findings of fact were sufficient; MCR 2.517(A)(2); Triple E Produce Corp v Mastronardi Produce, Ltd; Damages in a contract action; Lawrence v Will Darrah & Assoc, Inc; Damages in a tort action; Health Call of Detroit v Atrium Home & Health Care Servs, Inc; Causation; Kandil-Elsayed v F & O Oil, Inc; Unjust enrichment; Conversion; MCL 600.2919a; Badiee v Brighton Area Schs; Lost profits; Body Rustproofing, Inc v Michigan Bell Tel Co

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding plaintiff’s tort damages claim was speculative, but did err by failing to grant a judgment for plaintiff against defendant-Abdullah. The trial court entered a judgment of no cause of action in favor of defendants in plaintiff’s action alleging a variety of claims surrounding a dispute over trucking business. The trial court found defendants, in their capacity as independent contractors, did not “steal” any preexisting business from plaintiff, but instead found new business. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in adopting defendants’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law without weighing the evidence, assessing the credibility of the witnesses, and conducting its own independent analysis of the legal issues. Ultimately, the court found that the trial court correctly held that the damages claim was speculative, noting that under the facts of this case, it could not “find that the trial court erred when it determined that plaintiff had not met its burden to prove its damages with reasonable certainty.” Because plaintiff “may not proceed with claims arising out of tort where the alleged damages are speculative,” it likewise held “that the trial court did not err when it dismissed those claims.” However, regardless of whether there was mutuality of assent, Abdullah “was required to proceed in a workmanlike manner and he introduced no evidence at trial rebutting plaintiff’s evidence that he failed to notify the driver that the load needed to be refrigerated. Likewise, Abdullah introduced no evidence disputing plaintiff’s evidence that his mistake caused plaintiff damages in the amount of $28,138.78.” As such, plaintiff was “entitled to judgment against Abdullah in that amount.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.