Legal Opinion

Samson Sales, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1984No. 83-1593PublishedCited by 80 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKerns, J.

The only issue of any consequence in this appeal is whether the exculpatory clause limiting Honeywell’s liability to $50 is valid and enforceable.

While some jurisdictions have rejected such contract provisions on policy grounds, clauses in contracts providing for reasonable liquidated damages are recognized in Ohio as valid and enforceable. Lange v. Werk (1853), 2 Ohio St. 519; Jones v. Stevens (1925), 112 Ohio St. 43; 30 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1981) 136-137, Section 128. However, reasonable compensation for actual damages is the legitimate objective of such liquidated damage provisions and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Jones v. StevensOhio Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Miller v. BlockbergerOhio Supreme Court · 1924
  3. American Financial Leasing & Services Co. v. MillerOhio Court of Appeals · 1974

3Cited by80 opinions

  1. Lake Ridge Academy v. CarneyOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  2. In Re: Graham Square, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1997
  3. Mark-It Place Foods, Inc. v. New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. Boone Coleman Construction, Inc. v. Village of PiketonOhio Supreme Court · 2016
  5. Schrier v. Beltway Alarm Co.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1987

75 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