694 F.3d at 750 (“To determine [the parties’] intent, the law incorporates the traditional methods of contract interpretation. Where a contract’s meaning is clear on its face, that meaning controls. Where a contractual provision is subject to two reasonable interpretations, however, that provision is deemed ambiguous, and the court may look to extrinsic evidence—additional evidence that reflects the intent of the contracting parties—to help construe it.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216, 797 N.E.2d 1256, 1261 (2003) (“[W]here a contract is ambiguous, a court may consider extrinsic evidence to ascertain the parties’ intent.”); Look v. H & M Custom Home Builders Co., 2012 WL 2522647, at *3 (Ohio Ct.App. June 29, 2012) (<HOLDING>). The First Agreed Order provided that TLB
recognizing an agreement to agree is enforceable if its terms are reasonably definite and certain holding that the repeated sending of a writing which contains certain standard terms without any action with respect to the issues addressed by those terms cannot constitute a course of dealing which would incorporate a term of the writing otherwise excluded under  2207 because the repeated exchange of forms by the parties only tells buyer that seller desires certain terms given sellers failure to obtain buyers express assent to these terms before it will ship the program buyer can reasonably believe that while seller desires certain terms it has agreed to do business on other terms those terms expressly agreed upon by the parties holding an administrative interpretation cannot change the meaning of a statute or control the courts interpretation of it holding that ambiguity exists if the meaning of contractual terms cannot be deciphered from reading the entire instrument or if the terms are reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation holding that where only one interpretation of contractual terms is possible a court may decide the meaning of those terms as a matter of law