Illinois Controls, Inc. v. Langham
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtA. William Sweeney, J.
I
The present action requires us to determine the obligations created by the preincorporation agreement (“PIA”), whether such obligations have been breached and, if so, what parties are liable therefor. Appellees contend that the reference in the PIA to the marketing capabilities of Clark Balderson and BI was merely prefatory and therefore created no marketing obligation. The court of appeals agreed.
We are unable to concur in this conclusion. A review of the PIA reveals that the only “prefatory” language appears in the “whereas clause,” which set forth the parties’ desire to manufacture and…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Wood v. . Duff-GordonNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Traylor v. GraftonCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
- Crown Controls, Inc. v. SmileyWashington Supreme Court · 1988
- Cobb v. . KnappNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Peters v. Ohio State Lottery CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by106 opinions
- Nilavar v. OsbornOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
- In Re: James L. Blaszak, Debtor. Commonwealth Land Title Co. v. James L. BlaszakCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- Estate of Johnson v. Randall Smith, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2013
- Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2021
- Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. City of YoungstownOhio Court of Appeals · 2002
101 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.