Legal Opinion

Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 10, 1990No. 88-1621PublishedCited by 122 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

The issue before us concerns the interpretation of R.C. 1345.09(F)(2) which involves the award of attorney fees to a consumer when a supplier knowingly commits an act which violates the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. Chapter 1345.

The Consumer Sales Practices Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts3 and unconscionable acts or practices4 by suppliers in consumer transactions. The Act defines a “supplier” as a “* * * seller, lessor * * * engaged in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions * * *.” R.C. 1345.01(C). A “consumer transaction” is a “* * * sale, lease * * *…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Brooks v. Hurst Buick-Pontiac-Olds-Gmc, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. Bierlein v. Alex's Continental Inn, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1984

3Cited by122 opinions

  1. Whitaker v. M.T. Automotive, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Anderson v. Barclay's Capital Real Estate, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Charvat v. RyanOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Hanna v. Groom, 07ap-502 (2-26-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. Renner v. Derin Acquisition Corp.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1996

117 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