Tele-Save Merchandising Co. v. Consumers Distributing Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
814 F.2d 1120 (1987)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Tele-Save Merchandising Co. (Tele-Save) (plaintiff), an Ohio corporation, and Consumers Distributing Co. (Consumers) (defendant), a Canadian corporation with an office in New Jersey, negotiated a contract pursuant to which Consumers would supply Tele-Save with products and services from its catalog and Tele-Save would operate a retail showroom under Consumers’ direction. The parties’ contract included a choice-of-law clause identifying New Jersey law as governing the contract. Several months after Tele-Save opened its showroom, Consumers announced that it was canceling its catalog program, leading to a contractual dispute. Tele-Save filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Ohio, alleging that Consumers had violated the Ohio Business Opportunity Plans Act (Ohio act). Consumers moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Ohio act was inapplicable because the parties’ contract was governed by New Jersey law. Tele-Save argued that the choice-of-law provision violated the fundamental public policy of Ohio and that Ohio had a greater interest in the resolution of the lawsuit than did New Jersey. The district court granted Consumers’ motion for summary judgment, and Tele-Save appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Martin, J.)
Dissent (Milburn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
