MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Lion Apparel, Inc.

Citations

• 152 N.E.3d 513
• 2020 Ohio 694

Syllabus

Both parties to a commercial contract dispute appealed from the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of a protective equipment company and against the supplier that did not timely deliver goods ordered by the equipment company. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to the equipment company on claims related to glove shells that the supplier failed to deliver, as the evidence compelled a conclusion that the equipment company's prepayment toward those items was a refundable deposit, not \investment risk\ subject to forfeiture, and the supplier did not have a right to cure after repeatedly failing to deliver conforming goods despite multiple delivery date extensions. Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding pre-judgment interest to the equipment company from the date of the supplier's final missed delivery instead of from the date that the equipment company filed its counterclaim against the supplier. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the equipment company had not proven with reasonable certainty its claim for lost profits stemming from the supplier's failure to deliver outwear items ordered under a separate contract between the parties. Judgment affirmed.