Contract formation; Oral contract; Bodnar v St John Providence, Inc; Equitable remedies; Quantum meruit; Morris Pumps v Centerline Piping, Inc; Evidence; Business records; MRE 803(6); Solomon v Shuell; Due process; Notice & opportunity to be heard; AFP Specialties, Inc v Vereyken; House of Providence (HOP)

The court held that the trial court properly rejected plaintiff-ECI’s claims for payment because it failed to prove an oral contract or a compensable benefit, and the trial court did not deny it due process in the handling of its posttrial evidentiary issues. ECI sought nearly $288,000 for alleged grant-application and work-plan services connected to environmental remediation on defendant-HOP’s property, relying heavily on a one-day-created “Disputed Invoice” and its employee's (S) testimony after the parties’ relationship ended and HOP hired another consultant. The trial court found ECI’s evidence not credible, expressed concern that its posttrial submissions were “obliterated” by inconsistent invoices, and entered judgment for HOP. On appeal, the court held that ECI received due process because it had notice of the trial court’s authenticity concerns and a meaningful opportunity to address them, but simply failed to do so. The court next held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing yet more testimony because the proposed witness was not offering true rebuttal and ECI had already been given ample chances to lay a foundation for the subcontractor charges. The court also held that ECI failed to prove an oral contract, explaining that the issue turned on a credibility contest, and the appellate court deferred to the trial court’s finding that ECI’s evidence was not credible. The court further held that the judgment was not against the great weight of the evidence on quantum meruit because ECI did not credibly establish that it conferred a new benefit on HOP beyond work for which it had already been paid. It also upheld the exclusion or rejection of subcontractor charges as lacking trustworthiness under MRE 803(6). Affirmed.