Hathorn v. Dana Motor
2016 Ohio 5110
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Robin Hathorn and William Blount, Mercedes owners, sued Dana Motor Co., LLC and HCHT, LLC alleging overcharges for motor oil (among other fluids) and related claims under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), fraud, and breach of contract; plaintiffs later limited the appeal to motor oil claims.
- Plaintiffs’ invoices listed whole-unit quantities of motor oil (e.g., 8 or 9 quarts) that exceeded the actual capacity of their vehicles (7.5 and 8.5 quarts respectively).
- Dana Motor used a menu-pricing system that quoted and charged a fixed bundled price for scheduled service packages (including oil changes), rather than billing for individual quarts; billing software accepted only whole-unit entries.
- Plaintiffs argued the itemized invoices were deceptive/unconscionable and constituted fraud/breach because they suggested plaintiffs were billed for oil not delivered.
- Dana Motor moved for summary judgment on all claims; the trial court granted summary judgment for Dana Motor. Plaintiffs appealed only as to motor-oil-related claims.
- The appellate court reviewed summary judgment de novo and affirmed, concluding customers received the contracted bundled services at the quoted fixed price and no deceptive, unconscionable, fraudulent, or breach conduct occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dana Motor’s itemized invoices were deceptive under the CSPA | Itemized whole‑unit billing induced belief plaintiffs received more oil than they did | Services were sold via fixed-price menu packages; item quantities on invoices did not alter the bundled price or what was sold | Not deceptive: plaintiffs bought bundled service at fixed price and were not misled about total cost |
| Whether billing practices were unconscionable under the CSPA | Charging for more oil than used was knowingly taking unfair advantage | No evidence supplier manipulated consumer understanding or exploited inability to protect interests | Not unconscionable: no statutory circumstances supporting unconscionability shown |
| Whether Dana Motor committed fraud by representing provision of more oil than delivered | Itemized charges falsely represented material fact and induced reliance | No misrepresentation of the transaction: plaintiffs did not buy individual quarts but a bundled service price | No fraud: no actionable misrepresentation or justifiable reliance |
| Whether Dana Motor breached contract by failing to provide the oil paid for | Billing showed plaintiffs paid for oil not provided | Contract was for bundled services at agreed price; there is no failure to deliver the agreed bundle | No breach: plaintiffs received the contracted services at the agreed price |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Einhorn v. Ford Motor Co., 48 Ohio St.3d 27 (CSPA prohibits unfair or deceptive acts)
- Kelly v. Ford Motor Co., 137 Ohio App.3d 12 (itemization not deceptive where total cost not misleading)
- Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St.3d 278 (factors for unconscionability under CSPA)
- Rose v. Zaring Homes, 122 Ohio App.3d 739 (elements of fraud)
- Burr v. Board of County Commrs. of Stark County, 23 Ohio St.3d 69 (fraud elements framework)
- Natl. City Bank of Cleveland v. Erskine & Sons, 158 Ohio St. 450 (definition of breach of contract)