In Crane v. Courtright, 2 Ohio App. 2d 125, 206 N.E.2d 913 (1964), the Tenth District considered the same issue. In that case, Mr. Crane alleged that Mr. Courtright assisted Mr. Richmond in selling him an interest in a lease. Id. at 128. Mr. Courtright argued that Section 1707.43(A) "requires tender to the seller in person or tender to the seller in open court." Id. at 129. The court, however, rejected his interpretation of the statute. Id. It explained that, although Mr. Courtright's interpretation was plausible, it was "equally grammatically correct to say that the antecedent of 'in open court' is the word 'tender,' i.e., 'tender to the seller in person,' or 'tender . . . in open court.'" Id. The court noted that, under Section 1707.43, "liability is imposed individually or 'severally' upon a person who has participated in or aided in the sale." Id. Under Mr. Courtright's interpretation, "there would be very little significance left to this imposition of direct liability upon a participant." Id. The court reasoned that, "if a participant is required to make restitution of the purchase price to the plaintiff, then he is a proper person to receive the corresponding restitution of the security." Id. The court also noted that, "in the last paragraph of the statute it is explicitly provided that a participant may tender a refund to the purchaser and thereby avoid liability." Id. The court concluded that, "if a participant can tender to the purchaser, then the purchaser ought to be able to tender to the participant." Id.