Choice of law; The Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws; Contract claims; Chrysler Corp v Skyline Indus Servs, Inc; Noncontractual claims; Sutherland v Kennington Truck Serv, Ltd; Uniform Commercial Code (UCC); Breach of express warranties; Breach of implied warranties; Fraudulent & innocent misrepresentation; The economic loss doctrine; Huron Tool & Eng’g Co v Precision Consulting Servs, Inc; Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA); Nesbitt v American Cmty Mut Ins Co; Unjust enrichment; Morris Pumps v Centerline Piping, Inc

The court held that Ohio law applied to plaintiff’s contractual claims, but Michigan law governed his tort and equitable claims, and that his MCPA claim could proceed despite Ohio law’s application to his contractual claims. It further held that the trial court erred in dismissing his breach of express warranty, MCPA, and unjust enrichment claims, but not in dismissing his breach of implied warranty claim or his fraudulent misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation claim. The case arose from the sale of a vintage Corvette. The trial court granted defendants summary disposition. On appeal, plaintiff first argued that it erred in agreeing with defendants that Ohio law applied. The court concluded that the trial court correctly applied Ohio law to his contract claims but erred in applying it to analyze his other claims. As to the dismissal of his breach of warranty claims, it agreed with plaintiff the trial court erred in regard to his breach of an express warranty claim. Written promises defendants made both on defendant-company’s website and in an individual defendant’s e-mail about “the restoration and operability of the vehicle formed express warranties” that became a part of the bargain. And because they “were fundamentally incompatible with the written disclaimers in the purchase agreement, the disclaimers” were ineffective. But “the contractual ‘as is’ clause effectively disclaimed all implied warranties, and” thus, there was no error in the dismissal of his breach of implied warranties claim. The court next held that the trial court did not err in ruling that summary disposition of his “fraud claim was warranted under the economic loss doctrine.” As to his MCPA claim, because “plaintiff both resides in and was allegedly injured in this state, he may raise” this claim, and the trial court erred in “adopting defendants’ argument that the application of Ohio law barred” it. Finally, as to the unjust enrichment claim against the individual defendants, who were not parties to the purchase agreement, they did not “adequately make and support entitlement to summary disposition of this claim with documentary evidence.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.