implied contract exception in Ohio

2008Doner v. Snapp (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 597 , 600 , 649 N.E.2d 42 . {¶ 43} "`[T]he existence of express or implied-in-fact contracts does hinge upon proof of all of the elements of a contract.

2007Thus, `in construing a complaint upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we must presume that all factual allegations of the complaint are true and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.' Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 190 , 192 * * *." (Parallel citations omitted.) {¶ 36} "In order to successfully prosecute a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must present evidence establishing `the existence of a contract, performance by the plaintiff, breach by the defendant, and damage or loss to the plaintiff.'" Hurst v. Enterprise Title Age

2003Tohline v. Central Trust Co., N.A. (1988), 48 Ohio App.3d 280 , 282 .

2002Under the implied contract exception, "a handbook may be found to alter the terms of employment at will only if the employee and employer have agreed to create a contract from the writing." Tohline v. Central Trust Co., N.A. (1988), 48 Ohio App.3d 280 , 282-283 .

1994The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the implied contract claim under Mers v. Dispatch Printing, 19 Ohio St.3d 100 , 483 N.E.2d 150 (1985), and Kelly v. George-Pacific Corp., 46 Ohio St.3d 134 , 545 N.E.2d 1244 (1989). “2.

1994The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the implied contract claim under Mers v. Dispatch Printing, 19 Ohio St.3d 100 , 483 N.E.2d 150 (1985), and Kelly v. George-Pacific Corp., 46 Ohio St.3d 134 , 545 N.E.2d 1244 (1989). “2.

2007Thus, `in construing a complaint upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we must presume that all factual allegations of the complaint are true and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.' Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 190 , 192 * * *." (Parallel citations omitted.) {¶ 36} "In order to successfully prosecute a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must present evidence establishing `the existence of a contract, performance by the plaintiff, breach by the defendant, and damage or loss to the plaintiff.'" Hurst v. Enterprise Title Age

2007Thus, `in construing a complaint upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we must presume that all factual allegations of the complaint are true and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.' Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 190 , 192 * * *." (Parallel citations omitted.) {¶ 36} "In order to successfully prosecute a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must present evidence establishing `the existence of a contract, performance by the plaintiff, breach by the defendant, and damage or loss to the plaintiff.'" Hurst v. Enterprise Title Age

2007No. 2003-T-0059, 2004-Ohio-5457 , at ¶ 49-50: {¶ 38} "[e]mployee manuals, company handbooks, and similar documents may be important in establishing the terms and conditions of employment, and they may create implied contracts.

2007Thus, `in construing a complaint upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we must presume that all factual allegations of the complaint are true and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.' Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 190 , 192 * * *." (Parallel citations omitted.) {¶ 36} "In order to successfully prosecute a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must present evidence establishing `the existence of a contract, performance by the plaintiff, breach by the defendant, and damage or loss to the plaintiff.'" Hurst v. Enterprise Title Age

2004Id. at paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. {¶ 48} Referencing the implied contract exception, the Mers court stated that "[t]he facts and circumstances surrounding an * * * employment-at-will agreement, including the character of the employment, custom, and course of dealing between the parties, company policy, or any other fact which may illuminate the question, can be considered by the trier of fact in order to determine the agreement's explicit and implicit terms concerning discharge." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 49} Employee manuals, company handbooks, and similar docume

2004Id. at paragraphs two and three of the syllabus. {¶ 48} Referencing the implied contract exception, the Mers court stated that "[t]he facts and circumstances surrounding an * * * employment-at-will agreement, including the character of the employment, custom, and course of dealing between the parties, company policy, or any other fact which may illuminate the question, can be considered by the trier of fact in order to determine the agreement's explicit and implicit terms concerning discharge." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 49} Employee manuals, company handbooks, and similar docume

2004Cohen Co. v. Messina (1985), 24 Ohio App.3d 22 , 23-24 .

2000The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that an "independent contractor who lacks a contractual relationship with a second independent contractor owes no affirmative duty beyond that of ordinary care to the employees of the second contractor, where the first contractor does not supervise or actively participate in the second contractor's work." Kucharski v. National Engineering Contracting Co. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 430 , at the syllabus.

1994The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the implied contract claim under Mers v. Dispatch Printing, 19 Ohio St.3d 100 , 483 N.E.2d 150 (1985), and Kelly v. George-Pacific Corp., 46 Ohio St.3d 134 , 545 N.E.2d 1244 (1989). “2.

1994The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the implied contract claim under Mers v. Dispatch Printing, 19 Ohio St.3d 100 , 483 N.E.2d 150 (1985), and Kelly v. George-Pacific Corp., 46 Ohio St.3d 134 , 545 N.E.2d 1244 (1989). “2.

1993Helmick v. Cincinnati Word Processing, Inc. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 131 , 543 N.E.2d 1212 , at paragraph three of the syllabus. *647 Furthermore, for the theory of an implied contract exception to the employment-at-will doctrine to apply there must be a meeting of the minds between the parties as to the underlying terms that concern a discharge.

1993Helmick v. Cincinnati Word Processing, Inc. (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 131 , 543 N.E.2d 1212 , at paragraph three of the syllabus. *647 Furthermore, for the theory of an implied contract exception to the employment-at-will doctrine to apply there must be a meeting of the minds between the parties as to the underlying terms that concern a discharge.