# Preston v. First Bank of Marietta

> Ohio Court of Appeals · October 25, 1983 · 16 Ohio App. 3d 4

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3724521

## Case

- **Full name:** Preston Et Al., Appellees, v. First Bank of Marietta, Appellant; Smith Et Al., Appellees, v. First Bank of Marietta, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 25, 1983
- **Citations:** 16 Ohio App. 3d 4; 16 Ohio B. 4; 473 N.E.2d 1210; 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 15133
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stephenson
- **Judges:** Grey, Abele, Stephenson
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3724521

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that, although a contract must be definite as to price, it is just as well-established that parties may make a binding contract where the price is not stated exactly

## Opinion text

Stephenson, J.,
dissenting. I concur in the overruling of the first assignment of error. I would, however, sustain the second and third assignments of error, reverse, and remand for a determination of damages pursuant to Section 1640, Title 15, U.S. Code. I view as palpably erroneous, the conclusion in the majority opinion that “actual” damage is necessarily equal to the increase in the annual percentage rate since such damages, under Subsection (a)(1) of Section 1640 are recoverable only if ap-pellees can establish a causal connection between inaccurate disclosure and their injury by demonstrating that they relied on the inaccurate disclosure and thereby were effectively prevented from obtaining better credit terms elsewhere.
McCoy
v.
Salem Mtge. Co.
(E.D. Mich. 1976), 74 F.R.D. 8 , and
Vickers
v.
Home Federal S. & L. Assn. of East Rochester
(1978), 62 A.D. 2d 1171 , 404 N.Y.Supp. 2d 201. If appellees cannot establish the required causal nexus, they would still be entitled to recover the statutory penalty, costs and attorney fees embodied in the statute.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3724521. Public record. Not legal advice.