Business Systems agreed to provide supplies to IBM as a subcontractor to a deal to update computer systems of the Chicago Transit Authority. The budget for this deal was set at $3.6 million; however, only $2.2 million of services were actually performed under the contract. Business Systems sued IBM, believing that it was entitled to an additional $1.4 million that it had not received in the performance of the project. As evidence of contract, Business Systems produced a spreadsheet detailing the ways in which the $3.6 million would be spent and an e-mail claiming mutual agreement to the $3.6 million budget. IBM claimed that it had performed all of its obligations under the contract and that Business Systems was not entitled to the $1.4 million because there was no contract specifying the amount that Business Systems was entitled to. Do you think that Business Systems was entitled to the $1.4 million? What consideration was exchanged between the two parties? [Business Systems v. IBM, 547 F.3d 882 (2008).]