1. Why did the court require the plaintiff to prove the existence of the definite and certain terms of the contract?

2. Did Novak provide sufficient evidence for the court to enforce the oral contract in this case?

3. Did the State Prompt Payment Act apply to the facts of the case?

ServiceMaster as the general contractor hired to restore the Cleveland Browns Stadium in time for the Browns’ first pre-season football game hired subcontractor Novak to perform restoration and construction work. Novak sued for $37,158.82 for worked performed on the August 2, 2007, severe rainstorm project, referred to as Loss 2. ServiceMaster contended that Novak was bound by a written but unsigned subcontractor agreement, and that Novak’s alleged oral contract was lacking any definite terms to be enforceable. From a judgment for Novak, SeviceMaster appealed.

JUDICIAL OPINION

BOYLE, A. J.…

1. Evidence of Offer and Acceptance ServiceMaster contends that Novak failed to present evidence of an offer and acceptance of an oral contract, and therefore there was never a meeting of the minds between the parties. We disagree.

Pinchot testified that he entered into an oral contract with Pete D’Agostino, who had the authority to contract on ServiceMaster’s behalf. Pinchot further testified that D’Agostino agreed to compensate Novak on a “time and material basis” and reimburse Novak for its expenses in exchange for Novak performing the required work. The record further reveals that Novak completed the work and then submitted its final invoice, detailing its time and material on the job.

ServiceMaster never expressed any objection to the invoice and indicated that payment would be forthcoming upon its receipt of payment from the Cleveland Browns and the city of Cleveland. We find Pinchot’s testimony, coupled with the actions of the parties, provides competent, credible evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the parties entered into an oral contract with respect to Loss 2. ……………….