# McCullough v. Bill Swad Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.

> Ohio Supreme Court · June 22, 1983 · 5 Ohio St. 3d 181

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757996

## Case

- **Full name:** McCullough v. Bill Swad Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 22, 1983
- **Citations:** 5 Ohio St. 3d 181; 5 Ohio B. 398; 449 N.E.2d 1289; 36 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 513; 1983 Ohio LEXIS 743
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Holmes
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 39 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/6757996

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing a situation that “shakes the buyer’s faith or undermines his confidence” in the seller and where the seller is “proved incapable of curing [the good’s] defects”

## Opinion text

Holmes, J.,
dissenting in part and concurring in part. I concur in the syllabus law as set forth in this case, but would remand to the trial court for a determination of the amount due the dealer from the buyer as a setoff due to the buyer’s use of the goods after revocation. Both the court of appeals and this court state that Swad should be entitled to such an offset against the judgment for the reasonable value of the use of the automobile after the revocation. However, both courts summarily dispense with such an offset by stating that Swad introduced no evidence to establish the reasonable value of the automobile’s use.
The need for any such evidence when the appellant was asserting that the buyer had waived any right to revoke acceptance would, from the standpoint of trial procedure, have been highly questionable. The seller should be given an opportunity to present evidence of the reasonable value of such use, or the trial court should take judicial notice of the fair market value of the use of such an automobile.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757996. Public record. Not legal advice.