Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA); “Home solicitation sale”; MCL 445.111(a); “There given”; Brown v Jacob; Patrick v US Tangible Inv Corp; Notice of cancellation; MCL 445.113(1); Unenforceable contract for failing to comply with the statute’s requirements; MCL 445.117; Involuntary dismissal; MCR 2.504(B)(2)

The court held that the HSSA did not govern the parties’ roofing contract because defendants’ agreement was not “there given” at the time of plaintiff’s home solicitation. Thus, the court reversed the circuit court’s order and reinstated the district court’s orders, which were in plaintiff’s favor. Plaintiff sued defendants after replacing their roof. Defendants argued the contract was unenforceable because it lacked the HSSA’s three-day cancellation notice. The court first held that a home solicitation sale requires the buyer’s agreement to be “there given” to the seller, which, under binding precedent, means “the seller’s solicitation and the buyer’s agreement must occur at the same time and at the same place (at the buyer’s residence).” The court relied on Patrick, which held that a transaction was outside the HSSA because the purchase agreement was not “there given at the place of the sales presentation[.]” The court next held that plaintiff’s initial door-knocker visit was a solicitation because the door knockers went to homeowners and said, “Hey, we’ve got a service we can provide for you,” and the purpose was to get “a new roof” through an insurance claim. But the court held that the contract fell outside the HSSA because defendants did not sign until “at least two weeks—possibly more” after that solicitation. Thus, the court reasoned, the agreement was not “there given” because “considerable time elapsed between the initial solicitation and” a defendant’s eventual assent. The court declined to create a bright-line timing rule, explaining that whether an agreement is “there given” depends on “the particular facts and circumstances of each case.”