Slodov v. Animal Protective League
Ohio Court of Appeals
90 Ohio App. 3d 173, 628 N.E.2d 117 (1993)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Hannah Slodov (plaintiff) adopted a dog through the Animal Protective League (APL) (defendant). The APL had Slodov pay a $45 adoption fee and sign an agreement, which stipulated that the APL would provide treatment to the dog for up to two weeks after the adoption. The following day, the dog became ill, and Slodov took it to an independent veterinarian. Two weeks later, the dog again became ill, and the ADL offered for Slodov to bring the animal in the following day. Slodov again took the dog to an independent veterinarian and demanded that the APL pay for both visits. The APL refused, and Slodov filed suit in municipal court. The municipal court found in favor of the ADL. Slodov appealed, arguing that the adoption was a transaction for the sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code and that the ADL constituted a merchant.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nahra, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.