Legal Opinion

PPG Industries, Inc. v. Lindley

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 11, 1982No. 82-29Published

1DissentLocher, J.

The majority concludes that R.C. 1302.42(A) controls in this case. I disagree and, therefore, dissent.

The majority correctly quotes R.C. 1302.42(A) as providing, in part: “* * * title to goods passes from the seller to the buyer in any manner and on any conditions explicitly agreed on by the parties.” (Emphasis added.) The term “title” which is used in that provision, however, differs from that used in the parties’ stipulation: “Titles to the trailers were transferred from Fruehauf to PPG in the State of Michigan * * (Emphasis added.) In the stipulation, the word “titles” means the tangible…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. McLeod v. J. E. Dilworth Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. Hughes v. Al Green, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Grogan Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. GottfriedOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Albert D. Switzer, of the Estate of Clara L. Switzer, Deceased v. John Thornton Carroll and Celina Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1966

2 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