Legal Opinion
Trinova Corp. v. Pilkington Bros., P.L.C.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided September 14, 1994No. 92-2240PublishedCited by 81 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
The primary issue presented is whether LOF may raise as a defense to an action by TRINOVA a term contained in the SEA to which LOF was not a party.
Pilkington first contends that the SEA and the TAA are “integrated parts of the entire agreement” and, therefore, terms contained in the SEA are available to LOF as defenses. We believe that Pilkington’s argument is fatally flawed because of its fundamental misinterpretation of the principle of contract integration. Contract integration is actually a corollary to the parol evidence rule. Contract integration provides that where the parties’ intent…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Aultman Hospital Ass'n v. Community Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Skivolocki v. East Ohio Gas Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1974
- Hill v. Sonitrol of Southwestern Ohio, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- Latina v. Woodpath Development Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
- Blosser v. EnderlinOhio Supreme Court · 1925
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by81 opinions
- Electronic Merchant Systems LLC v. Peter GaalCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2023
- Gentile v. RistasOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
- Mark-It Place Foods, Inc. v. New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
- Stephen Cook v. Ohio Nat'l Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020
- Torrance v. RomOhio Court of Appeals · 2020
76 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.