Breach of Contract Cases

A personal guaranty allowing the guarantee to proceed directly against the guarantor without first proceeding against the principal is absolute and unconditional. Under an absolute guaranty, the guarantor is liable to the guarantee immediately upon the default of the principal. A decision on an award of attorney's fees rests in the sound discretion of the district court. The Supreme Court and the district courts possess concurrent jurisdiction to award attorney's fees on appeal however a preference exists that the initial determination be made by the district court.

The plaintiff banking firm sought to recover damages from the defendant, a former employee of the plaintiff, for, inter alia, breach of contract in connection with bonus agreements between the parties. The plaintiff, which had paid annual discretionary bonuses to its employees, was unable to pay the plaintiff his 2014 bonus until 2016 because of financial difficulties. When the defendant shortly thereafter requested his bonus for 2015, U, the plaintiff's chief executive officer, told him that the plaintiff was not paying 2015 bonuses at that time because it had just paid 2014 bonuses. The defendant thereafter told U that, in exchange for the 2015 bonus, he would bring his family to the United States from the Philippines, buy a home in Connecticut and redouble his efforts at the plaintiff's firm. Pursuant to written agreements the parties executed, U agreed to pay the defendant an advance on the 2015 bonus and an additional payment at a later date. Six days after receiving the advance on the 2015 bonus, the defendant informed U that he was resigning and moving to the Philippines. On his last day of employment, the defendant returned to the plaintiff a laptop computer that the plaintiff had provided to him. U thereafter discovered on the laptop e-mails from the defendant to friends and coworkers indicating that he had been preparing to start an information technology business in the Philippines upon receipt of the 2015 bonus. U concluded that the defendant had used the plaintiff's resources to develop that business. The plaintiff thereafter sought repay- ment of the 2014 bonus and the 2015 bonus advance. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff on its complaint in part and thereafter granted in part the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees. On the defen- dant's appeal and the plaintiff's cross appeal to this court, held that the trial court properly rendered judgment for the plaintiff and granted its motion for attorney's fees, and, because the court's me

Negligence small claims manifest weight competent and credible evidence comparative negligence damages abuse of discretion App.R. 16. The trial court's determination that plaintiff was comparatively at fault for damages to his vehicle while driving through a construction zone was supported by competent and credible evidence. The trial court's damages award was not an abuse of discretion.

Motion to stay motion to compel arbitration arbitration agreement motion to dismiss jurisdiction venue forum selection clause res judicata final appealable order R.C. 2711.02 hearing R.C. 2711.03 unconscionability procedural unconscionability substantive unconscionability. The trial court did not err denying appellant's motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, or alternatively to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and improper venue. The arbitration agreement in this case is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. Enforcement of the forum selection provision would be unreasonable and unjust, and effectively deny appellee its day in court. Based on the totality of the circumstances in this case, the trial court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on appellant's motion to stay and compel arbitration was not reversible error. Res judicata did not bar appellee from challenging the enforceability of the arbitration agreement in the second civil action.