Legal Opinion

Johnson v. Shrieves

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 23, 1935No. 108PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*308OPINION

By MATTHEWS, J.

It will be observed that there is no mention in the later agreement of right of ingress and egress from rooms in basement of Bank Building, and that omission, it is claimed, shows that the incompleteness of the meeting of the minds indicated in the original writing by the phrase “as per agreement hereto attached” continued, and that as the parties reached no definite conclusion on the subject of ingress and egress, no contract was made. It is argued that the correctness of this construction is indicated by the clause “in the event said contract of purchase is completed”…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Ottery v. BlandOhio Court of Appeals · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API