Marin v. Trumbull Cnty. Court of Appeals

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the terminable-at-will presumption did not apply given “the clear statement [in the contract] that [the company] could not terminate the agreement unless [the sales representative] violated it”
• holding that a contract that “renews automatically on each anniversary date of th[e] agreement for another period of twelve months” is of indefinite duration, even though one party “could terminate the contract at any time on thirty days’ notice”
• acknowledging that Jespersen requires “close parsing of the contract language” and determining that contract language was sufficient to supplant the at-will termination rule because contract “said [one party] could terminate the contract only if [other party] violated it.”
• “This presumption in favor of indefinite con- tracts being terminable at will can be overcome if the parties clearly agree to place limits on when termination may take place.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).