## Facts

- Cook United, Inc. operated a grocery store open to the public and advertised that its prices were lower than competitors’ and invited shoppers to “check and compare.”
- Arthur Mosher went to the store to compare prices and began writing down item prices while shopping.
- Store employees told Mosher that writing down prices was against store policy and directed him to stop.
- Mosher refused to stop taking notes and refused to leave when asked.
- Store personnel had Mosher arrested for trespass; the criminal charge was later dismissed.
- Mosher sued Cook United, alleging he was lawfully on the premises and that the store lacked authority to revoke his permission or cause his arrest, asserting an “irrevocable license” based on the store’s public invitation and advertisement.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a retail store’s public invitation and promotional advertisement create an irrevocable right for a customer to remain on the premises.
2. Whether a store may revoke a customer’s permission to remain and treat the customer as a trespasser when the customer refuses to leave after being ordered out.
3. Whether Mosher’s complaint stated a claim given the store’s asserted right to revoke permission and remove him for refusing to comply.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the court of appeals and the trial court’s dismissal.
- The court held that Mosher did not have an irrevocable license to remain in the store based on the public invitation or advertisement.
- The store could revoke Mosher’s permission to remain; after revocation and a clear demand to leave, Mosher’s continued presence could be treated as trespass.

## Legal Principles

- A merchant’s invitation to the public to enter premises to shop creates a business-invitee status or license that is generally revocable by the property owner.
- Promotional language encouraging consumers to compare prices does not convert a general invitation into an irrevocable entitlement to remain on private commercial property.
- Once permission to remain is revoked and the person is directed to leave, refusal to depart renders the person’s continued presence unauthorized and potentially trespassory.
- Where the legality of removal follows from valid revocation of permission, a complaint premised on a right to remain may fail to state a claim.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court held that a store’s open-door invitation, even when reinforced by a “check and compare” advertisement, grants only a revocable permission to enter and remain; when the store revoked Mosher’s permission and he refused to leave, he could be treated as a trespasser, so dismissal of his civil complaint was proper.


Mosher v. Cook United, Inc., 62 Ohio St. 2d 316, 405 N.E.2d 720 (Ohio 1980)