Breach of Contract Cases

Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment on breach of contract claim because proposed contract addendum did not constitute repudiation of contract or notice of termination, and breaching party was not entitled to unilaterally terminate contract. Trial court did not err by awarding damages in the amount of difference between contract price and subsequent sale price, because subsequent sale was proximate in time and made under similar conditions, thereby indicating that subsequent sale price represented fair market value of the property.

motion for summary judgment, breach of contract, declaratory judgment, contract interpretation, intent of the parties, business partnership termination agreement

CIVIL – oil and gas lease failure to join indispensable parties production covenant release termination condition precedent production in paying quantities statute of limitations, R.C. 2305.041.

R.C. 5301.36 satisfaction of mortgage class action certification class definition arbitration agreement. Appellant class representative claims the arbitration agreements contained in the mortgage agreements are not valid and do not warrant exclusions of potential class members from the class unless signed arbitration agreements were produced by appellee bank. While a claim regarding the enforceability of the arbitration agreement could be raised by those individuals subject to an arbitration agreement in their own actions against appellee bank, the instant class action concerned the class of mortgagors who did not have an arbitration agreement in their mortgage agreements, as set forth in the class definition. Thus, whether appellee bank must prove the validity of an agreement to arbitrate by producing a separately signed arbitration agreement is not pertinent for this certified class. Conceivably, appellant could have proposed a class definition to incorporate the requirement that individuals with an arbitration agreement in their mortgage agreement can only be excluded from the class by a proof of a separately signed arbitration agreement. However, the class as defined does not incorporate this requirement. In addition, the trial court concluded appellee bank complied with prior discovery requests and previously made relevant mortgagor files available for inspection. Therefore, appellant's claim that appellee bank must produce evidence of a separately signed arbitration agreement in order to exclude the mortgagors whose mortgage agreements contained an arbitration agreement lacks merit.

educational service center, treasurer, special audit, findings for recovery, breach of contract, duty to defend, severance pay, vacation leave, sick leave, summary judgment, performance incentives, motion to stay discovery, consideration, illusory, public policy, R.C. 3313.22, R.C. 3319.16, liquidated damages, unenforceable penalty, unconscionability, performance, R.C. 117.36, Civ.R. 59(A)(8), newly discovered evidence