Breach of contract damages; Doe v Henry Ford Health Sys; Proof of damages with reasonable certainty; Use of business records; MRE 803(6); Directed verdict vs involuntary dismissal; MCR 2.504(B)(2); Reasonable price in indefinite contracts; Calhoun Cnty v Blue Cross Blue Shield of MI; Recovery of profits; Lawrence v Will Darrah & Assocs; Attorney fees & interest under contract; Pransky v Falcon Group, Inc; Waiver of fraud claims; Quality Prod & Concepts Co v Nagel Precision, Inc; Personal protection equipment (PPE)

The court held that plaintiff proved its contract damages with reasonable certainty but that the trial court erred in part in its damages calculation. Defendants hired plaintiff, a cleaning and restoration company, after a house fire. Plaintiff estimated the work would cost between $100,000 and $150,000. After completion, it invoiced defendants $121,264.24, but they did not pay. The trial court granted partial summary disposition for plaintiff on liability, leaving only damages for trial. Following a five-day bench trial, the court awarded $93,830. On appeal, defendants challenged both the sufficiency of proof and specific damage items. The court rejected their argument that plaintiff failed to establish damages, noting that the final invoice was properly admitted as a business record and that testimony from plaintiff’s director of operations supported the reasonableness of the charges. It further held that contracts do not fail for indefiniteness where the parties intended to be bound and a “reasonable price” can be supplied, quoting Calhoun Cnty that “when the promises and performances of each party are set forth with reasonable certainty, the contract will not fail for indefiniteness.” The court upheld the trial court’s acceptance of Xactimate, an industry-standard estimating software, as a reasonable method for calculating damages, emphasizing that defendants offered no contrary expert proof. It affirmed findings that many challenged charges, such as PPE, temporary lights, storage containers, and sink removals, were reasonable, and it upheld reductions the trial court already made for duplicative charges. But it found error where the trial court allowed two bathtub removal charges despite evidence there was only one tub, requiring a $150.02 reduction. Turning to plaintiff’s cross-appeal, the court held that plaintiff waived its fraud claim by expressly agreeing below it was unnecessary after prevailing on breach of contract. It also upheld the denial of attorney fees and interest despite a contractual clause, reasoning that the final invoice was “acknowledged [by plaintiff] as not the correct total bill,” so awarding additional sums would have been inappropriate. Finally, it concluded the trial court may have erred in reducing plaintiff’s damages for hydroxyl generators, noting that photographs showed at least three units in use contrary to the trial court’s finding of one. It remanded for reconsideration of that item but otherwise affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.