Legal Opinion

Hutton v. Monograms Plus, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided January 31, 1992No. 91 CA 07PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Wolff, Judge.

Monogram Plus, Inc. (“MPI”) appeals from a summary judgment rendered in favor of David D. Hutton. In granting the summary judgment, the trial court determined that, as a matter of law, a satisfaction clause contained in a franchise agreement executed by MPI and Hutton called for Hutton’s subjective satisfaction as to what qualified as “suitable financing.”

The following facts are largely undisputed.

On August 4, 1989, Hutton and MPI executed a franchise agreement wherein MPI sold a monogramming franchise to Hutton. Hutton purchased the MPI franchise for $25,000. The terms of the…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Mattei v. HopperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Kadner v. ShieldsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
  3. Ard Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Dr. Pepper Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1953
  4. Cranetex, Inc. v. Precision Crane & Rigging of Houston, Inc.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1988
  5. Enterprise Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Howard Investment Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1957

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2003
  2. Crum v. April Corp.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2002
  3. State v. BlairOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
  4. Rudzik Excavating, Inc. v. Mahoning Valley Sanitary Dist.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. State v. BrooksOhio Court of Appeals · 2011

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API