Opinion

May Co. v. Lindley

  • 1 Ohio St. 3d 6
  • 437 N.E.2d 295
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 7, 1982
Status
Published
Author
Holmes
On the bench
Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Krupansky, Locher, Sweeney
Cited by
5 cases

The opinion

Holmes, J.,

dissenting. The personal service rendered here is definitely not inconsequential. To the contrary, the major thing sought by the customer in taking his watch into the May Company is the cleaning and repairing of .such watch in order to *10 restore its timekeeping capabilities. The mere fact that the watch movement of another previously repaired watch is inserted into the case does not render such exchange a sale within the meaning of R.C. 5739.01(B). Legally, no sale was effected for sales tax purposes.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.