of showing that there exists no genuine issue of material fact as to Counterclaim II alleging that plaintiff has breached the franchise agreement by accepting defendants’ payments of franchise and advertising fees for any so-called “additional products.” Accordingly, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on this counterclaim shall be granted. Counterclaim IV alleges breach of contract premised on plaintiffs refusal to allow defendants to transfer the franchise. Plaintiff argues that the “franchise” that defendants attempted to transfer consisted of nothing more than whatever rights and prior breach of contract provides an additional reason to bar their claims for breach of contract against plaintiff. See Aetna Casualty Surety Co. v. P & B Autobody, 43 F.3d 1546, 1569 (1st Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Defendants rely upon the Michigan Franchise
holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that a fundamental breach bars assertion of any further rights under the contract by the party guilty of the breach holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract