Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rose v. National Auction Group

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 9, 2002No. Docket 116600Published

1DissentWeaver, J.

I respectfully dissent in part from the majority opinion because I would grant the plaintiffs limited equitable relief. Specifically, I would not require plaintiffs to pay the defendants a ten-percent commission and six-percent auction fee, totaling $29,050.

I agree with the majority that we must respect the usual rule that “who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” The general rule is that when two *476parties are in pari delicto, both involved in an illegal or fraudulent transaction, the court will not grant the plaintiff relief. However, that rule is not meant to be applied inflexibly.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hobbs v. BoatrightSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
  2. Grim v. CheatwoodSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1953
  3. Baltimore Ohio Rd. Co. v. CarmanOhio Court of Appeals · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API