Public Information Office - Opinions and Case Summaries

Headlines 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | Search | Upcoming cases | Public Information Home

Supreme Court clarifies "saving" statute

2001-0615. Internal. Periodical Distrib. v. Bizmart, Inc., 2002-Ohio-2488.
Cuyahoga App. No. 77787. Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Cook, J., concurs in judgment only.
Douglas, J., dissents.
Opinion: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2002/2002-Ohio-2488.pdf

The Supreme Court today clarified an aspect of litigation pertaining to transactions under the Uniform Commercial Code.

Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer wrote the court's 6-1 opinion, which affirms an appeals court's application of the so-called saving provision from the state's commercial transaction statutes.

A saving provision basically gives a plaintiff in specific, limited situations additional time for filing a claim. The plaintiff in the case that gave rise to the opinion announced today urged the Supreme Court to apply the saving provision from the state's general litigation statutes. The general saving provision allows an additional year for filing, which is six months more than the commercial saving provision provides.

The issue arose in a breach-of-contract dispute between a magazine distributor and a retailer. International Periodical Distributors sought to recover more than $85,000 for magazines it sold and delivered to a company called Bizmart Inc.

"It is undisputed that the underlying contract was for a sale of goods. The [Uniform Commercial Code] therefore controls this case," Chief Justice Moyer wrote. "The statute clearly applies to the facts before us."

Justice Andrew Douglas dissented.

Contacts
Joel I. Newman and Paula J. Goodrich, 216.621.1541, for International Periodical Distributors.

Kyle B. Fleming, 216.621.0200, for Bizmart Inc.