Ameritech Publishing, Inc. v. Mayfield, 2011 Ohio 2971

Ameritech filed suit against Mayfield for $64,247.91 for advertising services (2005–2006) in nine Yellow Pages directories.
Ameritech presented five Ameritech Customer Receipts signed by Mayfield and corresponding ads and invoices supporting the balance.
Mayfield testified he never signed contracts and that receipts did not prove an agreement; he did not file a transcript with objections.
Magistrate found multiple written advertising agreements formed between the parties; Ameritech performed and Mayfield owed the balance.
Mayfield failed to provide a transcript on objections, so appellate review is limited to magistrate findings and trial-law conclusions.
Trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision, awarding $64,247.41 plus interest and costs; Mayfield appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether valid contracts existed between the parties.	Ameritech proves contracts via signed Receipts and correspondence.	Receipts are not contracts; signatures may be incidental; terms/back page not properly signed/dated.	Contracts existed; Mayfield liable for the balance.

Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1 (2002-Ohio-2985) (elements of contract formation require offer, acceptance, mutual assent, consideration, certainty)
Juhasz v. Costanzo, 144 Ohio App.3d 756 (2001-Ohio-) (contract formation questions are fact-dependent)
Episcopal Retirement Homes, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Indus. Relations, 61 Ohio St.3d 366 (1991) (meeting of the minds required for binding contracts)
In re All Kelly & Ferraro Asbestos Cases, 104 Ohio St.3d 605 (2004-Ohio-7104) (contract interpretation is a matter of law; facts support formation)
State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees, 73 Ohio St.3d 728 (1995) (when transcript absent, appellate review limited to magistrate findings)
Upton v. Tribilcock, U.S. 45 (1875) (treatment of contract terms signed without reading)