This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Duray (P) entered into a contract with D and others. P and D later entered into a new contract, intended to supersede the original contract. The new contract was between P and Outlaw only. Outlaw was an excavation company that D had recently formed. D signed the new contract on behalf of Outlaw and held himself out to P as the owners and persons in charge of the company. Once signed, all parties proceeded under the contract as if Outlaw were the contractor. The parties entered into the first contract and then entered into the second contract once the parties thought Outlaw was a valid limited liability company. P eventually sued D for breach of contract. P later learned through discovery that Outlaw did not obtain a 'filed' status as a limited liability company at the time the parties executed the second contract. According to the Limited Liability Company Act, MCL 450.4101 et seq., a limited liability company does not exist until the state administrator endorses the articles of organization with the word 'filed.' The trial court ruled against D for $96,367.68 in damages. D appealed; Outlaw was liable to P under the de facto corporation doctrine.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.