TRINOVA CORP. v. PILKINGTON BROS., P.L.C.

No. 92-2240.

70 Ohio St.3d 271 (1994)

TRINOVA CORPORATION, APPELLEE, v. PILKINGTON BROTHERS, P.L.C., ET AL.; LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD COMPANY, INC. ET AL., APPELLANTS.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided September 14, 1994.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Richard M. Markus; Cooper, Straub, Walinski & Cramer, Richard S. Walinski and Joseph P. Thacker; Pope & John, Ltd. and Peter C. John, for appellee.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Duke W. Thomas and Sandra J. Anderson; Fuller & Henry, Thomas S. Zaremba and Sue A. Sikkema, for appellants.


MOYER, C.J.

The primary issue presented is whether LOF may raise as a defense to an action by TRINOVA a term contained in the SEA to which LOF was not a party.

Pilkington first contends that the SEA and the TAA are "integrated parts of the entire agreement" and, therefore, terms contained in the SEA are available to LOF as defenses. We believe that Pilkington's argument is fatally flawed because of its fundamental misinterpretation of the principle of contract...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases