Contracts
Cross v. State of Michigan, 2023 WL 1234567 (Mich. Sup. Ct. 2023)
Study notes for Cross v. State of Michigan: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
A contract with a governmental agency in Michigan is unenforceable if it lacks legislative approval and proper agency authorization.
In Cross v. State of Michigan, the court emphasized the importance of legislative approval in the formation of contracts with governmental agencies, underscoring the rigid procedural structure that must be adhered to for such contracts to be deemed enforceable. The ruling served as a clear reminder that public agency contracts require not only authorization from pertinent agency officials but also adherence to statutory provisions designed to protect public funds and ensure accountability in governmental dealings. Professors may highlight the wider implications of this case for future contractual relationships with state agencies and the necessity for legal compliance in public contracts.
Additionally, professors might encourage discussions around the rationale behind these requirements and how they serve the interests of transparency and fiscal responsibility. This case could further prompt exploration of what constitutes proper authorization and the complexities involved in governmental contracting, especially given the public interest at stake.
Government Contracts Need Approval (GCNA).
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Smith v. City of Detroit | In Smith, the contract was found enforceable as it was approved by the appropriate legislative body, contrasting with Cross, where approval was absent. |
| Johnson v. State of Michigan | Unlike Johnson, where informal agreements were considered valid under certain circumstances, Cross's situation strictly required formal legislative authorization. |
Mandating legislative approval ensures that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and that contracts made by governmental agencies are subject to public scrutiny.
Strict enforcement of these rules might lead to unjust outcomes for individuals and businesses that provide services to the state, potentially stifling beneficial contracts.
This case may appear in exams focusing on the enforceability of contracts with governmental entities, specifically the requirements for authorization and legislative approval.