Hutton v. Monograms Plus, Inc.
Ohio Court of Appeals
604 N.E.2d 200 (1992)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Monograms Plus, Inc. (MPI) (defendant) sold an MPI franchise to David Hutton (plaintiff). The franchise agreement included an addendum which stated that if Hutton were “unable . . . to obtain financing suitable to him” within 90 days of the execution of the agreement, he would be entitled to a refund of the franchise fee he paid as part of the agreement. The financing was needed in part to purchase or lease a monogramming machine. An MPI liaison secured financing for a monogram machine lease for Hutton. However, Hutton determined that the payments under this lease were too high—particularly when compared to a franchisee circular that MPI had sent him—and he did not sign the lease. Hutton attempted to lease the machine from another company, but the company denied his financing application. As a result, Hutton informed MPI that he was invoking his right to a refund of the franchise fee because he could not find financing suitable to him. MPI denied Hutton’s request. Hutton brought suit and moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Hutton’s motion based on a subjective standard of the suitableness of the financing available to him. MPI appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wolff, J.)
Concurrence (Fain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.