This сause comes before the court upon the appeal of MatchMaker International, Inc. (“MatchMaker”) from the judgment of the Akron Municipal Court in favor of Holly Long (“Long”). Wе reverse.
*408 Long entered into a written agreement with MatchMaker on August 26, 1993, whereby Long agreed to pay MatchMaker $2,495 in exchange for certain social introductions. On the same date, Long issued a check to MatchMaker in the amount of $300 as a down payment. On the following day, Long stopped payment on the check.
On October 4, 1993, MatchMaker filed a cоmplaint against Long for the full amount of the contract, plus interest. Long sent the trial court а copy of a letter she wrote to MatchMaker’s counsel, dated October 21, 1993, alоng with a copy of a cancellation notice dated August 27, 1993, which Long alleged was sent to MatchMaker in compliance with R.C. 1345.43. 1 The court treated the letter and cancellаtion notice as an answer to MatchMaker’s complaint.
The case was tried to thе bench on March 1, 1994. Long admitted executing the agreement with MatchMaker, but alleged that shе had cancelled the contract by delivering the cancellation notice to аppellant within the time period set forth in R.C. 1345.43. MatchMaker presented evidence that it nеver received the cancellation notice until it was sent to its attorney after institution оf suit.
The trial court found that Long signed the contract, but that the evidence presented by the рarties on the cancellation issue was in equipoise and that MatchMaker had not met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it was entitled to judgmеnt. MatchMaker appeals, citing a single assignment of error:
“The trial court erred in concluding that where the evidence is equally balanced with respect to defendant Holly Long’s affirmative defense of cancellation of a contract, MatchMaker International, Inc. has not met its burden of proof and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
The cancellation of a contract is an affirmative defense to a claim thаt an obligation is owed pursuant to a contract.
Tom Harrigan Oldsmobile v. Desman, Inc.
(Mar. 5, 1981), Montgomery App. No. 6866, unreported,
*409
Whether there was sufficiеnt evidence presented at trial to support a finding of cancellation is a question to be determined by the trier of fact.
Steel Panel Bldg. Co. v. Maurer
(June 20,1986), Wood App. No. WD-85-84, unreported,
When MatehMaker introduced a copy of the written agreement, which Long admittеd executing, MatehMaker met its burden of proving the existence of a contract. See Dalgarn v. Leonard, supra. The burden then shifted to Long to prove by a preponderance of the evidencе that she had cancelled the agreement. The court’s judgment entry indicates that she failed to do so.
Under the court’s factual finding that the evidence was in equipoise, Long failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she cancellеd the agreement. “Preponderance of evidence” is defined as “evidence whiсh is of greater weight or more convincing than evidence which is offered in opposition to it * * Black’s Law Dictionary (6 Ed.1990) 1182. See, also,
State v. Stumpf
(1987),
MatchMaker’s assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this case is remanded for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Notes
. R.C. 1345.43 provides that the buyer of a prepaid entertainment contract has the right to cancel such contract until midnight of the third business day after the date on which the first services Eire available under the contract, unless such services are not available on the date the buyer signs the contract, in which event such time limit is extended to seven days.