No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Because the parties' written construction contract contained an obvious typographical error regarding the contractor's damages on termination for convenience, the trial court did not err when it reformed the parties' agreement to express the true intentions of the contracting parties. Because the parties' written agreement clearly and unequivocally set fort the contractor's margin for overhead and profit, the trial court erred when it relied on extrinsic evidence in finding that a different margin applied. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded for further proceedings.
Hanuman Chalisa v. Bomar Contracting Court Decision
What Happened
Hanuman Chalisa and Bomar Contracting had a written construction contract that included terms about what would happen if the contract ended early. The contract contained what appeared to be a typing mistake regarding how much money the contractor would receive if the job was terminated. The two sides disagreed about what the contract actually meant.
What the Court Decided
The court said the trial judge was correct to fix the obvious typing error in the contract to match what both parties actually intended. However, the court found the judge made a mistake by using outside evidence (information beyond what was written) to determine the contractor's profit margin when the written contract already clearly stated this amount.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling shows that courts will correct obvious typos in employment and contractor agreements. However, when contract language is clear and unambiguous, courts won't rely on other evidence to change those terms. This protects workers by ensuring written agreements mean what they say—but also requires that terms be clearly documented in writing to be enforceable.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Arbitration; arbitrability; motion to compel arbitration; motion to stay; Ohio Arbitration Act; Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"); interstate commerce; Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 ("EFAA"); Franken Amendment; sexual harassment; hostile environment;…
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.