the time that Wright had to transfer the shares held by Westside Corporation or the time that Knowles’s obligation to provide services, at a below-market rate, to Wright or to Westside Partnership and/or Westside Corporation terminated. See Playoff Corp., — S.W.3d at -, 2008 WL 5194340, at *4 (stating that evidence showed that “alleged agreement left a material matter open for future adjustment” and agreement never occurred); Shaw v. Palmer, 197 S.W.3d 854, 856 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied) (concluding that summary judgment did not contain evidence of any agreement to pay “sum certain” as bonus, amount of bonus was indefinite at time of agreement and was open for future negotiation or discretion, and parties only “had a contingent agreement to agree”); Farone, 165 S.W.3d at 802 (<HOLDING>). We overrule the first issue of Knowles and
holding that under ohio law fraud claim failed because there was no evidence of reliance holding that contract failed for indefiniteness because there were essential terms upon which there was no agreement holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding that plaintiffs claim was moot because there was no standing because the supreme court considered plaintiffs claims to have drifted into the area of speculation and conjecture  so that there was no cognizable injuryinfact and hence no case or controversy upon which jurisdiction could stand holding alleged contract to make 500000 line of credit available failed for indefiniteness when no evidence was introduced regarding interest rate of alleged loan or repayment terms