person against claim in Ohio

2014Satisfaction is the performance of that contract.” Id. at 231 . {¶25} R.C. 1303.40, Accord and Satisfaction by Use of Instrument provides: If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, that the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and that the claimant obtained payment of the instrument, all of the following apply: (A) Unless division (B) of this section applies, the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the inst

2011Satisfaction is the performance of that contract.” Id., 66 Ohio St.3d at 231 , 611 N.E.2d at 797 . {¶ 10} R.C. 1303.40 governs accord and satisfaction by use of an instrument and provides in pertinent part: “If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, that the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and that the claimant obtained payment of the instrument, all the following apply: (A) Unless division (B) of this section applies, the claim is discharge

2011Satisfaction is the performance of that contract.” Id., 66 Ohio St.3d at 231 , 611 N.E.2d at 797 . {¶ 10} R.C. 1303.40 governs accord and satisfaction by use of an instrument and provides in pertinent part: “If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, that the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and that the claimant obtained payment of the instrument, all the following apply: (A) Unless division (B) of this section applies, the claim is discharge

2011Satisfaction is the performance of that contract.” Id., 66 Ohio St.3d at 231 , 611 N.E.2d at 797 . {¶ 10} R.C. 1303.40 governs accord and satisfaction by use of an instrument and provides in pertinent part: “If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, that the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and that the claimant obtained payment of the instrument, all the following apply: (A) Unless division (B) of this section applies, the claim is discharge

2016Cooke Co. v. First Bank & Trust, 290 S.W.3d 297 (Tex.App.2009).

2014Under the U.C.C. as well as the Colorado and Ohio statutes, “the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim.” Id. citing U.C.C.

2013An abuse of discretion means “that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St .2d 151, 157, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980). {¶ 18} Gordon claims that he did not unreasonably delay bringing his claims, that any delay was excused, that Reid did not suffer material prejudice, and that Reid did not have “clean hands.” We focus on whether Reid demonstrated material prejudice, as we find this element to be dispositive. {¶ 19} For purposes of the doctrine of laches, prejudice exists when the plaintiff’s delay causes the loss of evidence helpful to the defend

2007Stated in basic terms, it is a contract * * *." Fabrizio v. Hendricks (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 352 , 356 . {¶ 27} "The overriding consideration in interpreting a release is ascertaining the intent of the parties.

2006Co. (1973) 34 Ohio App.2d 193 , 198 .

2002Dawson v. Anderson (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 9 , 13 , citing Allen, 66 Ohio St.3d at 232 .

1973Hillyer v. City of East Cleveland (1951), 155 Ohio St. 552 .

1952Marys Gas Co. v. Brodbeck, Admr., 114 Ohio St., 423 , 151 N. E., 323 .

1952Marys Gas Co. v. Brodbeck, Admr., 114 Ohio St., 423 , 151 N. E., 323 .

1911That it was this element of fraud or wilful wrong-doing that' called for the rule, is well illustrated by the language of the court in Benkert v. Feder, 34 Fed., 535 (cited by intervenor): “One who deliberately and knowingly uses another’s trademark, commits a palpable and unmitigated fraud, for which there is no possible excuse.” In Regis v. Jaynes , and in Nelson v. Winchell , the court an-, nounce, in substance, that the wrong-doer is not to be permitted directly or indirectly to profit by his own wrong; and the same reasons underlie Menendez v. Holt, 128 U. S., 514 .