Denkins v. Zinkan Enterprises case brief summary
1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4742 (Oct. 29, 1997)
CASE FACTS
The parties entered into an agreement whereby the consultant claimed that he agreed to furnish consulting services to the corporation for a fee. The corporation was obligated to repurchase the consultant's shares of stock in the corporation for 2.5 times their book value, or $ 1,500 per share, whichever was greater. The lower court found that the corporation breached the contract, and awarded the consultant $ 220,500. The consultant argued on appeal that the award should have been $ 343,340.55, because, according to him, that was 2.5 times the book value of his stock. The consultant alleged that the trial court's finding that he failed to prove the higher book value of the stock was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the trial court incorrectly denied his motion to reopen his case.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment. The court ordered that a special mandate issue out of the court, directing the lower court to carry the judgment into execution. Costs were taxed to plaintiff.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations and Business Associations Law
1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4742 (Oct. 29, 1997)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff consultant appealed from a
judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio), which
awarded the consultant $ 220,500 against defendant corporation for
breach of contract.CASE FACTS
The parties entered into an agreement whereby the consultant claimed that he agreed to furnish consulting services to the corporation for a fee. The corporation was obligated to repurchase the consultant's shares of stock in the corporation for 2.5 times their book value, or $ 1,500 per share, whichever was greater. The lower court found that the corporation breached the contract, and awarded the consultant $ 220,500. The consultant argued on appeal that the award should have been $ 343,340.55, because, according to him, that was 2.5 times the book value of his stock. The consultant alleged that the trial court's finding that he failed to prove the higher book value of the stock was against the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the trial court incorrectly denied his motion to reopen his case.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court found that the trial court's finding that there was insufficient evidence of the book value of the stock was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The court concluded that permitting plaintiff to reopen the case for inclusion of an alleged omitted exhibit would not have affected the trial court's decision.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment. The court ordered that a special mandate issue out of the court, directing the lower court to carry the judgment into execution. Costs were taxed to plaintiff.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations and Business Associations Law
No comments:
Post a Comment