Gries v. Modell

473 N.E.2d 807 (Ohio 1984)


Facts: Gries and Modell (boooo!) made a contract over the Cleveland Browns (a Delaware corporation) and then either amended or replaced it according to what law applies.  Gries sues for specific performance of the contract, and Modell argues that he is not bound by the contract as modified because it violates Delaware law.  Gries argues for the application of Ohio law, and Modell wants the application of Delaware law.  The trial court found that Ohio law governed and entered a judgment for Gries.  The court of appeals disagreed, and hold that Delaware law applies.


Issue: Should Ohio law or Delaware law apply to the contract between Gries and Modell?


Rule: Ohio case law sues the rule that the law of the state where the contract  is to be performed shall govern.  The Restatement of Conflict of Laws gives several other factors, including: (1) the place where the contract was made, (2) the place where the contract was negotiated, (3) the place where the subject matter of the contract is located, and (4) where the parties to the contract are located.


Analysis: The Ohio Supreme Court finds that based on either the existing rule or the Restatement rule, Ohio law controls.


Conclusion: The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.  I think the decision of the trial court is to be reinstated.


Back to Civil Procedure