(A) The courts of common pleas, and municipal or county courts within their respective monetary jurisdiction, have jurisdiction over any seller or broker with respect to any act or practice covered by sections 1334.01 to 1334.15 of the Revised Code, or with respect to any claim arising from the sale or lease of a business opportunity plan subject to such sections.
(B) A final judgment against a seller or broker under sections 1334.01 to 1334.15 of the Revised Code is admissible as prima-facie evidence of the facts upon which it is based in subsequent proceedings under sections 1334.01 to 1334.15 of the Revised Code against the same seller or broker or their successors or assigns.
(C) No action under sections 1334.01 to 1334.15 of the Revised Code may be brought to recover for a transaction more than five years after either the occurrence of the violation or the date on which the parties executed the agreement selling or leasing the business opportunity plan, whichever is earlier.
(D) In any case arising under section 1334.08 or 1334.09 of the Revised Code, if a seller or broker shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation, or failure to meet the requirements of the exemption provided for in section 1334.13 of the Revised Code, resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adopted to avoid the error, no civil penalties shall be imposed against the seller or broker under division (D) of section 1334.08 of the Revised Code, no party shall be awarded attorney's fees under division (B) of section 1334.09 of the Revised Code, and monetary recovery shall not exceed the amount of actual damages resulting from the violation. In addition, a purchaser may, in an action brought within one year after the date on which the agreement selling or leasing the business opportunity plan was executed, recover all sums paid to the seller less the fair market value, at the time of delivery, of any goods supplied by the seller that are not returned to the seller.
ry/eh, Inc. v. Arthur Treacher's, Inc., 685 N.E.2d 316 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5ד” R.C. 1334.10 provides: “(C) No action under sections 1334.”
Henderson v. SMC Prods., Inc., 2019 Ohio 5275 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4ד“Section 1334.10 * * * does not establish Ohio courts as the only courts able to apply the Ohio [Business Opportunities Plans Act].”
Tele-Save Merchandising Co. v. Consumers Distrib. Co., Ltd., 814 F.2d 1120 (6th Cir. 1987). “To the contrary, the Act is expressly applicable to "any claim arising from the sale or lease of a business opportunity plan" in Ohio, Ohio Rev. Code § 1334.10(A), and there is no evidence that the Act was intended to apply only to adhesion contracts.”
6100 Cleveland, Inc. v. Staff Builders Int'l, Inc., 127 F. Supp. 2d 877 (N.D. Ohio 1999). · cites it 4דDefendants assert that plaintiffs’ claims under the franchise disclosure laws are barred by the statute of limitations.”
Burger Dynasty, Inc. v. Bar 145 Franchising, L.L.C., 2019 Ohio 4006 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4ד1996), the appellate court found that the five year statute of limitations found in R.C. 1334.10(C) did not apply because the seller had failed to include the right of cancellation notice in the franchise agreement.”
White v. Stotts, 2010 Ohio 4827 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “09, invoking a four-year statute of limitations, an action subject to the “opportunity sale,” invoking a five- year statute of limitations as set forth in R.C. 1334.10, or that Stotts was not acting as an attorney, but as an escrow agent, invoking a fifteen-year statute of -12-…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1334.10(A) — 2 cases
Tele-Save Merchandising Co. v. Consumers Distrib. Co., Ltd., 814 F.2d 1120 (6th Cir. 1987). “To the contrary, the Act is expressly applicable to "any claim arising from the sale or lease of a business opportunity plan" in Ohio, Ohio Rev. Code § 1334.10(A), and there is no evidence that the Act was intended to apply only to adhesion contracts.”
Henderson v. SMC Prods., Inc., 2019 Ohio 5275 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). ““Section 1334.10 * * * does not establish Ohio courts as the only courts able to apply the Ohio [Business Opportunities Plans Act].”
6100 Cleveland, Inc. v. Staff Builders Int'l, Inc., 127 F. Supp. 2d 877 (N.D. Ohio 1999). “Defendants assert that plaintiffs’ claims under the franchise disclosure laws are barred by the statute of limitations.”
Burger Dynasty, Inc. v. Bar 145 Franchising, L.L.C., 2019 Ohio 4006 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “1996), the appellate court found that the five year statute of limitations found in R.C. 1334.10(C) did not apply because the seller had failed to include the right of cancellation notice in the franchise agreement.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1334.10(D) — 1 case
Burger Dynasty, Inc. v. Bar 145 Franchising, L.L.C., 2019 Ohio 4006 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “1996), the appellate court found that the five year statute of limitations found in R.C. 1334.10(C) did not apply because the seller had failed to include the right of cancellation notice in the franchise agreement.”
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.