Manifold & Phalor, Inc. v. Konecranes, Inc.

Ohio Ct. App.December 31, 2020No. 19AP-737Cited 2 times

Mixed ResultKonecranes, Inc

Case Details

Judge(s): Brunner
Status: Published
Procedural Posture: summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Excerpt

In this breach of warranties and breach of contract action brought by appellant for damages caused by an allegedly defective product purchased from appellee, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to appellee based on the court's determination that appellant had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Based on the record and construing the facts of the amended complaint in favor of appellant, this Court finds that the record contains evidence that support facts entitling it to at least recovery of direct damage, and therefore the trial court's dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was improper under law. Judgment reversed cause remanded.

What This Ruling Means

# Plain English Summary: Manifold & Phalor, Inc. v. Konecranes, Inc. ## What Happened Manifold & Phalor purchased equipment from Konecranes that the company claimed was defective and caused damage to their business. Manifold & Phalor sued, arguing that Konecranes broke their contract by providing faulty goods. Konecranes asked the trial court to dismiss the case early, claiming Manifold & Phalor didn't have valid legal grounds to sue. ## What the Court Decided The appeals court disagreed with the trial court's dismissal. The court found that based on the facts presented, Manifold & Phalor had a legitimate claim worth pursuing in court. The case could proceed rather than being thrown out immediately. ## Why This Matters for Workers This ruling reinforces that businesses have recourse when companies sell them defective products under contract. It prevents companies from avoiding accountability by dismissing complaints without proper review. While this specific case involves business-to-business disputes, the principle protects workers indirectly by maintaining contractual accountability standards that also apply to employment relationships and workplace agreements.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Breach of Contract cases

9th CircuitNov 2000

Mixed Result

Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.

3rd CircuitSep 2008

Defendant Win

State v. Myers

Ohio Ct. App.Apr 2026

Remanded

Lashaway v. Lashaway

Ohio Ct. App.Mar 2026

Dismissed

State v. Ayers

Ohio Ct. App.Mar 2026

Plaintiff Win

Read Full Opinion More Konecranes, Inc Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check Your Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.