197 Ohio App. 3d 598
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Arrow Machine and Array Connector entered a September 14, 2007 purchase and supply agreement setting a 12‑week lead time and a minimum quarterly quantity for four part sizes.
- The contract allowed termination by the buyer for failure to meet contract requirements, including on‑time shipping of goods.
- Array Connector placed a large December 3, 2007 purchase order for 12,000 pieces of each part to be delivered Feb 20–25, 2008; later shipments occurred December 2007–March 2008 with some late deliveries and defect corrections.
- Array Connector stopped issuing purchase orders in 2008; discussions occurred about pricing for smaller quantities, and two late deliveries occurred in 2008 leading to disputes over performance.
- In June 2008, Correa terminated the agreement citing Arrow’s delivery issues and price disputes; Arrow claimed it was not in material breach and had substantially performed.
- At trial, the jury found no breach by either party; the court later addressed a jury question about whether early shipments constitute a breach, ruling that they would not be a breach by Array.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the verdicts mutually inconsistent? | Arrow: inconsistent on breach findings requires reversal. | Array: verdicts interrelated; no illogical inconsistency. | No reversible inconsistency; verdicts affirmed. |
| Was Arrow entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict? | Arrow: evidence supports breach by Array; verdict should grant JMOL. | Array: material issues of fact; jury could reasonably find no breach. | JMOL denied; evidence and jury findings support trial outcome. |
| Did the court err in instructing on breach during jury deliberations? | Arrow: court improperly resolved breach issue in response to jury question. | Array: court properly answered a jury question within discretionary bounds. | No reversible error; response within discretion and not an infringement on jury authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Posin v. A.B.C. Motor Court Hotel, Inc., 45 Ohio St.2d 271 (Ohio 1976) (de novo standard for JMOL; weigh not the evidence)
- Environmental Network Corp. v. Goodman Weiss Miller, L.L.P., 119 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 2008) (JMOL and appellate review of legal standards)
- Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 42 Ohio St.3d 40 (Ohio 1989) (notice concepts and cure/adjustment under contract law)
- Romp v. Haig, 110 Ohio App.3d 643 (Ohio App.3d 1995) (inconsistent verdicts; need proper objection timing)
- Kenney v. Fealko, 75 Ohio App.3d 47 (Ohio App.3d 1991) (when jury verdicts on interrelated claims are illogical, remand or vacate)
- Little Miami R.R. Co. v. Wetmore, 19 Ohio St. 110 (Ohio 1869) (jury instructions and general correctness standard)
- Marshall v. Gibson, 19 Ohio St.3d 10 (Ohio 1985) (jury instructions and legal completeness)
- Gallagher v. Cooper, 14 Ohio St.3d 41 (Ohio 1984) (waiver of objections to trial court responses to jury questions)