Breach of Contract Cases

EXPRESS WARRANTY – NEGLIGENCE – FRAUD – ACCEPTANCE – SMALL CLAIMS COURT – AS-IS WARRANTY: The trial court's determination that defendant was negligent in the repair of plaintiff's just-purchased vehicle was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the vehicle caught fire ten minutes after plaintiff began driving it for the first time after the repair was made, and the trial court was in the best position to determine whose testimony was most credible. The magistrate's fraud finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence because the defendant disclosed the issue with the vehicle to the plaintiff. Plaintiff purchaser did not have a reasonable opportunity to inspect the vehicle after the repair was made where, after plaintiff test drove the vehicle, defendant car dealer assured plaintiff that it would repair a fuse, the repair was made with a fuse from an older model vehicle, and ten minutes after plaintiff drove her vehicle off the lot it caught fire.

R.C. Chapter 4117 collective bargaining agreement State Employee Relations Board union grievance arbitration fact-finder unfair labor practice R.C. 2711.10 arbitration award rational nexus. The trial court did not err when it found that the arbitrator had jurisdiction over the dispute between the city and the union. SERB had already dismissed the union and the city's unfair labor practice charges and the arbitrator's decision that he had jurisdiction over the collective bargaining agreement issues was not unlawful, arbitrary, or capricious. The trial court did not err when it found that the arbitrator was within his authority to interpret missing essential terms in the collective bargaining agreement the arbitrator's interpretation was based on contract law and arbitral labor law and did not create an agreement where one did not previously exist. The arbitrator's decision was rationally based upon the terms of the collective bargaining agreement therefore, the arbitrator did not exceed his powers and the award is not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful.

The plaintiff law firm sought to recover damages from the defendant for, inter alia, breach of contract in connection with its representation of the defendant. The matter was referred to an attorney fact finder, who filed a report recommending judgment for the plaintiff on the complaint. The trial court overruled the defendant's objection to the report of the attorney fact finder and rendered judgment in accordance with it. Two exhibits, a retainer agreement and a bill for services, were considered by the attorney fact finder, but were not reviewed by the court, as they were reported missing from the clerk's office. The defendant appealed to this court, claiming that the court improperly overruled her objection to the attorney fact finder's report and improperly rendered judgment in accordance with the attorney fact finder's report because the report contained insufficient factual findings. Held: 1. The trial court improperly overruled the defendant's objection to the attorney fact finder's report because the court failed to review all of the evidence considered by the attorney fact finder: a court, on reviewing a report of an attorney fact finder, must assess all of the evidence that was presented to the attorney fact finder in order to properly consider objections challenging the report, and, here, the court could not ade- quately assess the defendant's claims that the billing was excessive and that the quantum of work claimed by the plaintiff did not correlate to the claimed time expended without reviewing the retainer agreement and billing record entered as exhibits before the attorney fact finder; moreover, faced with the fact that these exhibits were missing from the record, it would have been appropriate for the court to remand the case to the attorney fact finder or to have taken any other action it deemed appropriate pursuant to the relevant rule of practice (§ 23-58 (a)). 2. The trial court improperly rendered judgment in accordance with the report of the