Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 1303
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.17 (2026)

Contradictory terms of instrument - UCC 3-114

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
August 19, 1994
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 147 - 120th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both typewritten and printed terms, and words prevail over numbers.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1976–1985 · leading case: Banco Ganadero y Agricola, S.A. v. Soc'y Nat'l Bank of Cleveland, 418 F. Supp. 520 (N.D. Ohio 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Banco Ganadero y Agricola, S.A. v. Soc'y Nat'l Bank of Cleveland, 418 F. Supp. 520 (N.D. Ohio 1976). · cites it 2× “” This conclusion follows from the second sentence of Ohio Rev.Code § 1303.17 (U.C.C. § 3-118), which provides that “[a] draft drawn on the drawer is effective as a note.”
Banco Ganadero Y Agricola v. Soc. Nat. Bk., Cleve., 418 F. Supp. 520 (N.D. Ohio 1976). · cites it 2× “" This conclusion follows from the second sentence of Ohio Rev.Code § 1303.17 (U.C.C. § 3-118), which provides that "[a] draft drawn on the drawer is effective as a note.”
Hosford v. Automatic Control Sys., Inc., 470 N.E.2d 263 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1984). · cites it 2× “R.C. 1303.17 provides in part: “The following rules apply to every instrument: “(D) Unless otherwise specified a provision for interest means interest at the judgment rate at the place of payment from the date of the instrument, or if it is undated from the date of issue.”
Fid. Title Serv. v. Ball Homes, Inc., 495 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1985). · cites it 4× “R.C. 1303.17(F) (UCC 3-118[f]) provides: “Unless otherwise specified, consent to extension authorizes a single extension for not longer than the original period.”
Ohio Student Loan Comm'n v. Holley, 471 N.E.2d 159 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “Defendants cite R.C. 1303.17(E) (ambiguous terms and rules of construction) which states as follows: “Unless the instrument otherwise specifies two or more persons who sign as maker, acceptor, or drawer or in-dorser and as a part of the same transaction are jointly and severally…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.17(E): 1 case
Ohio Student Loan Comm'n v. Holley, 471 N.E.2d 159 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “Defendants cite R.C. 1303.17(E) (ambiguous terms and rules of construction) which states as follows: “Unless the instrument otherwise specifies two or more persons who sign as maker, acceptor, or drawer or in-dorser and as a part of the same transaction are jointly and severally…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.17(F): 1 case
Fid. Title Serv. v. Ball Homes, Inc., 495 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1985). “R.C. 1303.17(F) (UCC 3-118[f]) provides: “Unless otherwise specified, consent to extension authorizes a single extension for not longer than the original period.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.