Opinion ID: 789821
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Prejudgment interest (Scotts)

Text: 56
57 Ohio law provides for a statutory prejudgment interest rate unless a written contract provides a different rate of interest in relation to the money that becomes due and payable, in which case the creditor is entitled to interest at the rate provided in that contract. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1343.03(A). Whether the district court was correct in setting the prejudgment interest rate on the gardens-unit accounts at 18% per annum depends on whether Scotts's 2000 Distributor Price List is considered a written contract under Ohio law. See id. 58 The leading case of Hobart Brothers Co. v. Welding Supply Service, Inc., 21 Ohio App.3d 142, 486 N.E.2d 1229, 1232 (Ohio Ct.App.1985), held that a statement on an invoice or bill to which the other party has not assented does not meet the requirement of R.C. 1343.03(A) as to the existence of a written contract between the parties. Other Ohio cases have applied this reasoning to invoices and similar documents. See Yuhanick v. Cooper, No. 99 CO 37, 2001 WL 274545, at  (Ohio Ct.App. Mar. 14, 2001) (unpublished) (applying Hobart to hold that an invoice did not constitute a written contract); Cuff's, Inc. v. Clemmons, No. 66913, 1994 WL 568320, at  (Ohio Ct.App. Oct. 13, 1994) (unpublished) (holding that an application to open a Shopper's Charge Account at a clothing store did not constitute a contract to pay increased interest, even after the customer made payments on the account at the higher interest rate). 59 One Ohio case allowed prejudgment interest to be based on a term contained in a price list, but only where a provision in a separate written contract signed by the parties explicitly incorporated the list. See Alfa-Laval, Inc. v. Cow Supply, Inc., No. 3-88-18, 1990 WL 61743, at  (Ohio Ct.App. May 8, 1990) (unpublished) (using the interest rate set forth in the price list where a term in the governing contract provided that Dealer's orders for De Laval Products will be sold to Dealer at the prices and terms as specified in De Laval Price Lists....). In the present case, there is no governing contract applicable to Scotts's Distributor Price List. 60 Although the district court properly noted that a price list is not the same as an invoice, Ohio case law strongly suggests that the district court erred by holding that a price list that had not been explicitly incorporated into a written contract was sufficient to meet the written contract requirement of § 1343.03(A). Central may have order[ed] stock in response to the 2000 Distributor Price List, but it did not explicitly agree to the 18% interest rate. Furthermore, the fact that Scotts sent this document to Central before any shipment occurred is not controlling. Section 1343.03(A) makes no exception to the written-contract requirement in cases where the higher interest rate is buried in the fine print of an instrument other than a contract, even where the instrument is distributed before the goods are shipped. 61 Because this price list would almost certainly be found by an Ohio court not to constitute a written contract under § 1343.03(A), the district court erred in setting the prejudgment-interest rate of 18% per annum for the gardens unit. We therefore vacate this portion of the district court's opinion and hold that the correct prejudgment-interest rate is the Ohio statutory rate. 62
63 The only documents setting an interest rate for the lawns unit were invoices. For the reasons discussed above, the district court properly held that these invoices did not meet the written-contract requirement of § 1343.03(A). Likewise, the statutory rate was appropriate for the growing media/organics and horticulture accounts, for which no written instrument at all specified a higher interest rate. We therefore affirm the district court's holding that the statutory-interest rate was appropriate for all of these other accounts.