Folands Jewelry Brokers, Inc v. City of Warren

I dissent from the majority opinion because I reluctantly must conclude that our Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v Lee, 447 Mich 552; 526 NW2d 882 (1994), controls the outcome of this case. I believe the majority’s limitation on the application of Lee to criminal usury cases construes Lee too narrowly.

In Lee, the complainant, Lonnie May, approached the defendants, Jeffrey Lee and David Miller, for a loan. As security for the loan, May *310offered his Rolex watch. The defendants did not want to loan May money,1 but offered to buy the watch for $2,600 and then resell it to him in thirty…