Breach of Contract Cases

Although the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding a contract ambiguous where the express terms of the contract contained an agreement to arbitrate, the error was harmless as the record supports the trial court's determination that the defendant waived its right to arbitration by participating in the litigation in a manner inconsistent with the right to arbitrate.

Trial court's determination regarding purported oral lease purchase agreement of mobile home is affirmed, particularly where there was testimony that appellants misrepresented the year of the mobile home.

Appellant filed a complaint after he was terminated from his employment with the Bradley County, Tennessee Sheriff's Department. The complaint alleges a violation of procedural and substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, breach of contract, and violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 38-8-304. The County filed a motion for summary judgment on various grounds and a second motion to dismiss on the basis that Appellant's claims were barred by the one year statute of limitations. The trial court granted the County's motion for summary judgment and by separate order granted the County's motion to dismiss on the basis that the one year statute of limitations applied. We affirm.

Out of court statement of a deceased office worker is not hearsay where it was an admission of a party opponent made by a servant of appellee during the course of her employment. Genuine issue of material fact exists whether appellee agreed to remove the drain plugs from appellants' boat where the office worker told appellants, "We'll take care of it," and "We got it winterized, shored, everything's taken care of." Premises liability claim must fail where appellant had actual knowledge of the hazard.

Belvedere Test, pierce corporate veil, breach of contract, joint venture, third-party beneficiaries, incidental beneficiaries, Ohio Business Opportunity Plan Act, R.C. Chapter 1334. This case involves a commercial business arrangement evidenced by written contracts between multiple parties for the sale of goods and provision of related services. The trial court properly granted summary judgment denying breach of contract and violation of the Ohio Business Opportunity Plan Act, R.C. Chapter 1334. There are no written contracts between appellants and appellees. Existing contracts specifically state that all parties are independent contractors. The record does not demonstrate an intent by appellees to enter into a joint venture with any of the contracting parties. Appellants failed to pierce the corporate veil by establishing that appellees had no separate mind, will, or existence per Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., 67 Ohio St. 3d 274, 617 N.E.2d 1075 (1993). At best, appellants were incidental beneficiaries of the commercial agreements. Appellees and appellants did not qualify as "sellers" and "purchasers" and no "business opportunity plan" existed between the parties under R.C. 1334.01 of the Ohio Business Opportunity Plan Act, R.C. Chapter 1334.

Arbitration stay contracts substantive and procedural unconscionability. Trial court did not err in staying matter pending arbitration where arbitration agreement met requirements of enforceable contract and was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable.

Appellate order reversing trial court final order rendered trial court's earlier determination that procedural issues were moot justiciable Trial court did not err in ruling on procedural issues.

Where a plaintiff in a complaint in the Court of Claims for breach of contract alleges breaches more than two years before its filing but fails to allege any breaches within two years of its filing or that breaches are ongoing, there is a facial showing that the two-year statute of limitations for actions in the Court of Claims bars the action. Where the Court of Claims makes such a finding that the statute of limitations has run, it satisfies the requirements for dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim, but granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on facts not in the record such as being subject to a collective bargaining agreement is error. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

CIVIL - court of common pleas subject matter jurisdiction county employee CBA proportional share of hospitalization premiums unpaid suit for breach of contract State Employee Relations Board R.C. Chapter 4117 outside SERB exclusive jurisdiction court possessed jurisdiction grievance procedure inapplicable summary judgment proper.

This appeal concerns an employment-related restrictive covenant. Eric Manchir ("Manchir") worked as a sales manager for ADP, LLC ("ADP"), a company that deals in human resources and business outsourcing matters. As a prerequisite to obtaining restricted stock options from ADP, Manchir consented to a restrictive covenant agreement ("the Agreement"). The Agreement contained, among other things, a non-competition clause extending to twelve months after Manchir left ADP. New Jersey law governs the Agreement. Manchir later resigned from ADP and went to work for an ADP competitor, Paycor, Inc. ("Paycor"). ADP sued Manchir in the Chancery Court for Davidson County ("the Trial Court") for breach of contract and sought specific enforcement of the Agreement. ADP filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted. The Trial Court also awarded ADP, pursuant to a provision in the Agreement, attorney's fees and costs. Manchir appeals. We hold, inter alia, that the Agreement is reasonable and enforceable under New Jersey law, that Manchir breached the Agreement, and that specific performance is an appropriate remedy. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.