2019 Ohio 2362
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Forbes, a nail technician employed by Showmann since 2011, attended a company holiday party on Jan. 28, 2017 where employee raffle tickets (complimentary) were distributed for prizes.
- One prize (the "cruise package") consisted of gift cards (Carnival $2,000; Southwest $500; Uber $200). Only employees with at least two years' service were eligible to enter that raffle.
- Forbes entered (did not pay for) the ticket, was announced as the winner at the party, and requested the prize the next day but did not receive it.
- Forbes was terminated a few weeks after the party. Showmann’s owner testified the prize was conditioned on the winner being an employee at the time the cruise was taken; Forbes says she was not told of that condition until after termination.
- Forbes sued for breach of contract, conversion, and violation of Ohio’s Prompt Pay Act (R.C. 4113.15); the trial court granted Showmann summary judgment on all claims. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract: whether a contract arose from winning the complimentary raffle prize | Forbes: winning the raffle created a contract obligating Showmann to deliver the cruise package | Showmann: no consideration—ticket was complimentary, so no bargained-for exchange, therefore no contract | No contract; summary judgment for Showmann affirmed |
| R.C. 4113.15 (Prompt Pay Act): whether the raffle prize qualified as a "fringe benefit" under the statute | Forbes: the prize was a fringe benefit owed as part of employment | Showmann: the prize was a gratuitous raffle award, not a statutory fringe benefit like health, retirement, vacation, or holiday pay | Prize not a fringe benefit; summary judgment for Showmann affirmed |
| Conversion: whether Forbes had a right to possession and Showmann wrongfully withheld the prize | Forbes: as announced winner she was entitled to possession of the prize and Showmann wrongfully withheld it | Showmann: the prize was a conditional gift; Forbes had no right to possess the prize until any condition (e.g., being an employee when cruise taken) was satisfied | Genuine factual dispute about whether a post-raffle employment-at-travel-time condition applied; summary judgment for Showmann reversed and remanded on conversion claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 123 Ohio App.3d 158 (review of summary judgment de novo) (4th Dist.)
- Tersigni v. Gen. Tire, Inc., 91 Ohio App.3d 757 (elements of contract: offer, acceptance, consideration) (9th Dist.)
- Carlisle v. T & R Excavating, Inc., 123 Ohio App.3d 277 (consideration requires bargained-for benefit/detriment) (9th Dist.)
- Irving Leasing Corp. v. M & H Tire Co., 16 Ohio App.3d 191 (whether consideration exists is a question of law) (2d Dist.)
- Wilkin v. Wilkin, 116 Ohio App.3d 315 (conditional gift principle) (4th Dist.)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 163 Ohio App.3d 260 (engagement rings as conditional gifts) (2d Dist.)