2013 Ohio 5575
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Re/Max contracted to upgrade its phones to support VoIP and paid Roberts $10,665 on August 31, 2010.
- Roberts began work but by November 18, 2010 VoIP service remained nonfunctional and Re/Max demanded a refund.
- Dispute centered on whether Roberts agreed to reflash existing phones to enable VoIP or merely to review the system.
- Discovery violations by Roberts led to court sanctions and precluded certain testimony and evidence at trial.
- Trial proceeded to a magistrate; a final judgment awarded Re/Max $11,665 for breach of contract, which the municipal court affirmed.
- Roberts argued the judgment was against the weight of the evidence and raised issues of contract formation and personal liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a breach of contract by Roberts? | Re/Max contends Roberts breached by failing to refl ash and implement VoIP per agreement. | Roberts contends there was only an investigative obligation, not a complete upgrade, and payment was not for breach. | Yes, competent evidence showed breach; VoIP not implemented and funds not returned. |
| Was Roberts personally liable as an agent? | Re/Max argues Roberts acted personally (d.b.a. Citadel) and cannot shield with an unformed principal. | Roberts contends agency disclosure would shield him, or no personal liability. | Roberts is personally liable; his use of Citadel d.b.a. did not insulate him from liability. |
| Did the trial court’s weight-of-the-evidence ruling sustain on appeal? | Re/Max maintains the trial court correctly credited the evidence supporting breach and liability. | Roberts argues the weight of the evidence favors him. | The weight-of-the-evidence standard was not met to reverse; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (2007-Ohio-2202) (describes manifest-weight standard and deference to trier’s credibility)
- J&J Schlaegel, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees, 2006-Ohio-2913 (2d Dist. Champaign) (elements of breach of contract and damage requirements)
- James G. Smith & Assoc., Inc. v. Everett, 1 Ohio App.3d 118 (1981-Ohio-5) (agent liability when principal undisclosed or fictitious)
- Huskin v. Hall, 2012-Ohio-653 (11th Dist. Trumbull) (personal liability when doing business under fictitious name prior to formation)