Busch Bros. Elevator Co. v. Unit Building Services, 942 N.E.2d 404

Busch Brothers Elevator sued Unit Building Services and RCHP for breach of contract over unpaid elevator repair work; bench trial awarded Busch money from both defendants, which Unit appeals.
RCHP owned a Sheraton Hotel and hired Unit as construction manager; Unit contacted Busch to perform repairs; no written contract existed between Unit and Busch.
Trial court allocated responsibility for five invoices (Sept–Nov 2005) between RCHP (one invoice) and Unit (four invoices) based on alleged contracts.
The court found Busch completed work at Unit's direction and that Unit had previously paid eight invoices through RCHP, suggesting course of dealings but not establishing Unit’s contractual liability.
Court rejected the existence of a contract between Unit and Busch for payment, citing lack of consideration and lack of sufficiently particular terms for an oral contract; it reversed in part and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a contract between Unit and Busch requiring Unit to pay?	Busch argues there was a contractual obligation based on course of dealings.	Unit contends there was no contract due to lack of consideration and specificity.	No contract; Unit not liable.
Whether Busch’s damages were unrecoverable due to mitigation, given the contract issue is resolved.	Busch would argue damages are recoverable absent mitigation concerns.	Unit argues damages must be reduced for failure to mitigate, though moot after holding no contract.	Moot; not addressed on the merits.

Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (established standards for contract/other civil matters in Ohio)
C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Conslr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (contract formation and consideration principles)
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Guman Bros. Farm, 73 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1995) (precedent on contract damages and related issues)
Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 64 Ohio St.3d 145 (Ohio 1992) (regulatory/contractual interactions context)
Minster Farmers Coop. Exchange Co., Inc. v. Meyer, 117 Ohio St.3d 459 (2008) (recent Ohio contract doctrine reference)
Lake Land Emp. Group of Akron, L.L.C. v. Columber, 101 Ohio St.3d 242 (Ohio 2004) (interpreting contract formation and consideration)
Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2002) (contract formation and mutual assent standards)
Irwin v. Lombard Univ., 56 Ohio St. 9 (Ohio 1897) (ancillary contract principles survives longstanding treatment)
Software Clearing House, Inc. v. Intrak, Inc., 66 Ohio App.3d 163 (Ohio App. 1990) (evidence and formation considerations for oral contracts)
Borgerding v. Ginocchio, 69 Ohio App. 231 (Ohio App. 1942) (Restatement-based view on consideration)