purchase its hoses exclusively from Goodyear, as Cyril requires. In addition, there was no “disclosed framework based on either a stated estimate or past performance history by which to determine guidelines for the quantity term of a requirements contract.” Ohio Rev.Code § 1302.19(A) (West 1998), As a result, the court finds that Goodyear and Heatway did not- enter into any single requirements contract for flexible rubber hose, and further finds that the parties had separate contracts for each shipment of, Entran II and Entran III hose, Therefore, Heatway may not seek relief under Ohio Rev.Code § 1302.91, and is liable for payment on each individual Entran III contract'during 1995 and 1996. Cf. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Larry H. Wright, Inc., 443 F.Supp. 14, 21 (S.D.Ohio 1977) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the court finds no genuine issue
holding that plaintiff gas company may not properly withhold payment on any contract independent of contract alleged to have been breached by defendants holding that any constitutionally protected property interest employee had as a result of his employment contract has been satisfied by payment of full compensation  including salary and benefits  due under the contract holding that plaintiff stated a claim for breach of contract when it alleged the government failed to purchase insurance for plaintiff as agreed by contract holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract holding that if plaintiff substantially performed its contractual obligations then it would be entitled to the payment due under the contract less the cost of any correction of defects in its performance even if it breached the contract