. EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building Systems, 2007 WL 4563518, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2007). Here, the email communications between Mr. Bird's and Ver-Tech from June to November 2017 constitute only preliminary negotiations, and therefore did not create a binding contract.

The Court determines that such "acquiescence in the correctness of the account" is inconsistent with a written agreement, as in this case, that contains only "approximate" amounts. Cf. EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., No. CIV.A. 05-CV-01549, 2007 WL 4563518, at *9 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2007) (granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on an account stated claim where the letters in question failed to, inter alia, provide a "specific dollar amount"). Other courts addressing this question have reached the same conclusion.

"The requirement of consideration is nothing more than the requirement for a bargained for exchange." EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys. , No. CIV.A. 05-CV-01549, 2007 WL 4563518, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2007) (citing Estate of Beck , 489 Pa. 276, 414 A.2d 65 (1980) ). " ‘Consideration consists of a benefit to the promisor or a detriment to the promisee.’ "

Under Pennsylvania law, a party's intent to contract is generally treated as a question of fact. Adani Exports Ltd. v. AMCI Export Corp, Civil Action No. 05-304, 2007 WL 4298525, at *12 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 4, 2007) (citing Viola v. Bocher, 740 A.2d 1176, 1178 (Pa.1999)); see EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Civil Action No. 05-CV-01549, 2007 WL 4563518, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2007) ("If ... the evidence surrounding the existence of a contract is ambiguous and susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the issue of that contract's existence is a question of fact and therefore a motion for summary judgment must fail."). Viewing the evidence of record in the light most favorable to Zandier, a factfinder could reasonably determine that BWCC, through the conduct of its agents and the documents presented to Zandier, manifested an intent to enter into a binding unilateral contract to provide incentive bonuses under the terms of the Old PTIP, subject to various conditions and performance requirements, and subject to the Company's right to terminate or modify the plan upon notice prior to the completion of performance.

But even if Defendant had offered legitimate justifications for their pay cuts, Plaintiffs have still shown a question of material fact. See EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Systems, 2007 WL 4563518, at *8 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding defendant's fraudulent intent at issue "[b]ecause the parties proffer entirely different reasons for sending the May 26th letter and the statements of [defendant] [and] determining the real reason for their issuance is a factual inquiry."). Plaintiffs have also satisfied the other elements of fraudulent inducement, including sufficient proof of their ignorance of the falsity of Defendant's misrepresentation.

Id. Such Motion was granted by the Court on the same day. (Docket No. 66). Pursuant to said Motion, Plaintiff EBC was then dismissed from the case. This Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on December 21, 2007, granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket Nos. 70-71); EBC, Inc. et al. v. Clark Bldg. Systems et al, Civ. A. No. 05-1549, 2007 WL 4563518, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93817 (W.D.Pa. Dec 21, 2007). Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff's breach of contract and account stated claims but denied its unjust enrichment and fraudulent inducement claims.