YONG OK KIM V MOBILE GROUP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
YONG OK KIM, d/b/a KIMS CLOTHES,
UNPUBLISHED
November 25, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 198621
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 94-412484 CZ
MOBILE GROUP,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Young, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order of remand, Kim v Mobile Group, 453 Mich 902
(1996), this appeal comes before this Court as on leave granted. Plaintiff sued defendant for damage to
her business, inventory, and work in progress caused by a bursting steam pipe. The Wayne Circuit
Court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition. This case is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
The lease which governed the relationship of these parties provides, in paragraph (21):
“The landlord shall not be responsible or liable to the tenant . . . for any loss or
damage resulting to the tenant or his property from bursting, stoppage or leaking of
water, gas, sewer or steam pipes.”
While plaintiff contrasts her claimed lack of sophistication with that of the corporate defendant, and
notes her status as an immigrant to this country and lack of facility with and fluency in the English
language, such matters are of no moment when the relations of the parties are governed by a contract.
Where a person cannot read the language in which a contract is written, it is as much her duty to
procure someone to read it to her as it would be to read the agreement before signing were she able to
do so, and failure of plaintiff to obtain a reading and explanation is negligence which estops her from
avoiding the contract on the grounds she was ignorant of its provisions. Aluia v Harrison Community
Hospital, 139 Mich App 742; 362 NW2d 783 (1984).
-1
Where, as here, the parties, with knowledge of the facts and without any inequitable incidents,
make an agreement or other instrument as they intend it to be and the writing expresses the transaction
as it was understood and designed to be made, equity will not allow a defense against its enforcement,
nor grant reformation or rescission thereof, even though one of the parties may have been mistaken as
to, or misconceived, its legal meaning, scope, or effect. Sinka v McKinnon, 301 Mich 617; 4 NW2d
32 (1942).
Here, the contract clearly provides that the landlord shall not be responsible or liable to the
tenant for any loss or damage attributable to bursting, stoppage or leaking of steam pipes. This contract
is in no pertinent respect ambiguous; the word “any” means just what it says, and includes “each” and
“every”. Sifers v Horen, 385 Mich 195, 199 n 2; 188 NW2d 623 (1971). Plaintiff contractually
assumed the risk of both personal injury and property damage from bursting steam pipes; her failure to
purchase insurance against the risk thus assumed is unfortunate but does not make defendant liable for a
loss from which it is expressly absolved of responsibility or liability by contractual agreement.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
