payments. See Bissell v. L.W. Edison Co., 9 Mich.App. 276, 156 N.W.2d 623, 628 (1967). The Court finds that plaintiff has satisfied its bur estor Law, Mich.Comp.Laws § 445.1501 et seq., in an attempt to bolster their argument that plaintiff committed a breach of contract by refusing to allow the proposed transfer. See Mieh.Comp.Laws § 445.1527(g). However, this Michigan statute is inapplicable under the facts of the instant case. Paragraph 16A of the franchise agreement clearly states that “[t]his Agreement shall be interpreted, construed and governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” See Exh. l.A. to plaintiffs motion, ¶ 16A. Such choice of law clauses are generally valid and enforceable. See Banek Inc. v. Yogurt Ventures U.S.A., Inc., 6 F.3d 357, 360 (6th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). As a result, Michigan law would not be
holding that the law of michigan rather than the forum applied to manufacturers claim of attorneyclient privilege in a products liability suit because the communication took place in michigan and therefore michigan had most significant relationship to communication holding that the michigan usury act mcla  43831 a statute setting forth the legal interest rate in michigan is preempted according to the explicit terms of hola holding that litigating franchise dispute in michigan does not require that michigan law govern dispute as michigan franchise investment law does not expressly void choice of law provisions in franchise agreement holding that under michigan franchise investment law franchisees failure to comply with lawful provisions in franchise agreements by failing to pay royalties and advertising fees and failing to file monthly sales reports constituted good cause for franchisors termination of agreements where franchisor gave notice of termination in writing and franchisees made no effort to cure holding texas franchise tax constitutional