Leal v. Holtvogt
Court of Appeals of Ohio
702 N.E.2d 1246 (1998)
- Written by Joseph Bowman, JD
Facts
Ferdinand Leal and his wife (the Leals) (plaintiffs) entered into a partnership agreement with Joseph and Claudia Holtvogt (the Holtvogts) (defendants). The partnership agreement afforded the Leals a one half interest in a horse that the Holtvogts owned in exchange for $16,000. Prior to the agreement, the Leals maintained a student-teacher relationship with the Holtvogts. The Holtvogts were experts in the equine industry and the Leals testified that they entered into the agreement based on representations the Holtvogts made. Specifically, the Holtvogts knew what type of horse the Leals were looking for and suggested that the Leals abstain from purchasing another horse and enter into their agreement. The Holtvogts also stated, among other things, that their horse could command high prices as a stud. The Holtvogts failed to disclose that the horse had been treated for lameness. At trial, a horse breeder testified that she would have reservations about breeding a lame horse. The horse died before the Leals could recoup their investment, and the Leals sued the Holtvogts for breach of warranty. The lower court found in favor of the Leals, and the Holtvogts appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
