For Your Data Denkins V. Zinkan Enterprises Instance Brief
May 22, 2016
Edit
Denkins v. Zinkan Enterprises example brief summary
1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4742 (Oct. 29, 1997)
CASE FACTS
The parties entered into an understanding whereby the consultant claimed that he agreed to provide consulting services to the corporation for a fee. The corporation was obligated to repurchase the consultant's shares of stock inwards the corporation for 2.5 times their mass value, or $ 1,500 per share, whichever was greater. The lower courtroom works life that the corporation breached the contract, as well as awarded the consultant $ 220,500. The consultant argued on appeal that the accolade should accept been $ 343,340.55, because, according to him, that was 2.5 times the mass value of his stock. The consultant alleged that the trial court's finding that he failed to attempt out the higher mass value of the stock was against the manifest weight of the evidence, as well as that the trial courtroom incorrectly denied his motility to reopen his case.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the judgment. The courtroom ordered that a especial mandate lawsuit out of the court, directing the lower courtroom to deport the judgment into execution. Costs were taxed to plaintiff.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations as well as Business Associations Law
1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 4742 (Oct. 29, 1997)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff consultant appealed from a judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio), which awarded the consultant $ 220,500 against accused corporation for breach of contract.CASE FACTS
The parties entered into an understanding whereby the consultant claimed that he agreed to provide consulting services to the corporation for a fee. The corporation was obligated to repurchase the consultant's shares of stock inwards the corporation for 2.5 times their mass value, or $ 1,500 per share, whichever was greater. The lower courtroom works life that the corporation breached the contract, as well as awarded the consultant $ 220,500. The consultant argued on appeal that the accolade should accept been $ 343,340.55, because, according to him, that was 2.5 times the mass value of his stock. The consultant alleged that the trial court's finding that he failed to attempt out the higher mass value of the stock was against the manifest weight of the evidence, as well as that the trial courtroom incorrectly denied his motility to reopen his case.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the courtroom works life that the trial court's finding that at that topographic point was insufficient prove of the mass value of the stock was non against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The courtroom concluded that permitting plaintiff to reopen the example for inclusion of an alleged omitted present would non accept affected the trial court's decision.
CONCLUSION
The courtroom affirmed the judgment. The courtroom ordered that a especial mandate lawsuit out of the court, directing the lower courtroom to deport the judgment into execution. Costs were taxed to plaintiff.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations as well as Business Associations Law