state. Such a suggestion makes no sense at all and, with all due respect, is patently absurd. In Burger King, the franchisee sold no hamburgers in Florida. The Supreme Court did not consider the identity of Rudzew-icz’s ultimate customers; it considered the identity and relationship with the relevant Florida resident — Burger King, Inc. In the instant case, Rowlette had extensive contacts and an ongoing relationship with the only Ohio citizen of relevance for purposes of the Burger King analysis-— Calphalon. Rowlette intentionally sought to enter into and maintain a relationship with an Ohio corporation over an extended period of time, which in turn led to numerous commercial transactions between them. See Southern Machine Co. v. Mohasco Ind., Inc., 401 F.2d 374, 382 (6th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>). The relationship to Ohio is not rendered
holding in a suit to establish the existence of an oral agreement for the sale of stock that the judicial admission exception was not satisfied by the plaintiffs deposition testimony acknowledging that before negotiations had broken down the parties had reached an agreement with regard to price and quantity of stock and had drafted a document reflecting the agreement recognizing that although defendant had not solicited the original agreement it unquestionably had purposefully availed itself of the license agreement at issue in the case holding that the government was bound by an agreement it treated as binding although it preceded the formal plea agreement holding that where one party had received a written agreement and conformed his conduct to that agreement for an extended period of time but failed to sign the agreement he was equitably estopped from denying the validity of the agreement holding that although signing arbitration agreement was condition of employment agreement was not void for unconscionability