of assumpsit which lies “where money has been received which in equity and good conscience ought to be refunded.” See Black’s Law Dict. 122 (6th ed.1990). The Court need not reach plaintiffs additional argument that by voluntarily paying such fees without complaint defendants thereby waived any claim for breach of contract based on th le. Even if Michigan law were to apply, plaintiff Dun-kin’ Donuts’ refusal to approve the transfer is not premised on the allegedly unenforceable clause in paragraph 10B giving plaintiff veto power but rather upon the fact that defendants’ rights under the franchise agreement had already terminated and thus defendants had nothing to transfer. Accordingly, summary judgment will be granted in plaintiffs favor o se Guide (CCH) ¶ 11,174 (D.Mass. May 13, 1997) (<HOLDING>); Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc. v. Chetminal, Inc., Bus.
holding that failure to make any tax payment despite having resources sufficient to pay all or a substantial portion of tax liability constitutes evasion holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable holding that franchisees illegal sale of cigarettes to minors provided cause for termination holding that state and city tax evasion considered relevant conduct under conviction for federal tax evasion holding that franchisees tax evasion scheme provided cause for termination