Id. at 110:20-111:4.See, e.g., AMC Tech., LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 2013 WL 3559807, at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2013) (noting that "Uliano even explicitly says 'I'll [talk to the team and] get back to you,' rather than words of assent" (emphasis added)); Hammond v. Grengs, 2021 WL 856081, at *3 (Minn.Ct.App. Mar. 8, 2021) (statements that a "fully-executed" contract was required and that party would "have [his] lawyers review" a proposal and "would 'get back to'" the counterparty meant that the parties' email exchange did not form a valid agreement); Spectrum Glass Co. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1. of Snohomish Cty., 2005 WL 1580042, at *6-7 (Wash.Ct.App. July 5, 2005) (response to proposal regarding payment term consisting only of "I'll get back to you" was insufficient to show acceptance of payment term); see also Roh v. Devack, 2009 WL 3347105, at *1, *3 (D. Conn. Oct. 14, 2009) (denying summary judgment on claim that "I agree to the 2.85 Million. We will get back to you soon with what terms we can offer" constituted an agreement; holding that while the defendant's email "accept[s] the price term," it "clearly contemplates that additional negotiation as to other terms is still required, and advises Plaintiff of such.").