![]() Courts have voided certain agreements when the substance of the contract or the consideration is malum in se, meaning wrong in its very nature because the matter or thing contracted for violates the natural or moral norms of society.” The Bullet Point: “t is the policy of the law to encourage freedom of contract, and that the courts should not interfere with this right unless it clearly appears that the execution of the contract will prejudice the public interest.’” “‘The power of courts to declare a contract void as being against public policy is a delicate and undefined one, and, like the power to declare a statute unconstitutional, should be exercised only in cases free from doubt.’Ī “void contract” is a “contract that is of no legal effect, so that there is no contract in existence at all.” As the Seventh District noted, “ontracts found void as in violation of law and contrary to public policy are void because the law disapproves of the purpose of the contract, consideration contemplated, or the terms of the agreement by which the parties seek to achieve their contractual purpose. On appeal, the Seventh Appellate District affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that the parties’ rental agreement was not void and was not against public policy. ![]() ![]() The sale of goods in Ohio may entail both express and implied warranties, including the implied warranty that the goods “are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.” “nless the circumstances indicate otherwise all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like ‘as is’, ‘with all faults’, or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer’s attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty.”Īdditionally, “when the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the goods * * * as fully as he desired or has refused to examine the goods there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him.” Thus, as the court held, “n situations like the present one, where there has been a repudiation of warranties, revocation based on non-conformity has not been allowed” The Bullet Point: A used motor vehicle is a “good” for purposes of Ohio’s UCC. In this appeal, the Eleventh Appellate District reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff on her vehicle warranty claims, finding that she was not entitled to rescind her motor vehicle purchase.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |