Opinion ID: 6329210
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Parties’ Contracts

Text: The Bureau-Grantor Agreement and the Operator Agreement govern the parties’ relationships. In 1993, OOD and the Health Science Campus entered into an initial Grantor 1 The statute defines a “vending facility” as “automatic vending machines, cafeterias, snack bars, cart services, shelters, counters, and such other appropriate auxiliary equipment as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe[.]” 20 U.S.C. § 107e(7). -2- No. 20-3913, Cyrus v. Univ. of Toledo, et al. Agreement; an additional Grantor Agreement was executed in June 2018 (“2018 Grantor Agreement”). Under the 2018 Grantor Agreement, a “licensed blind vendor,” i.e., Cyrus, was granted “the exclusive right to operate a combination coffee kiosk and sandwich stand[.]” (Grantor Agreement, Ex. B, R. 2-1, PageID # 42). The Grantor Agreement obligates the signatories (and, derivatively, Cyrus2) to perform specific duties. For example, BSVI is required to “provide [to the blind vendor] any necessary equipment, initial supplies, and other services necessary[.]” (Grantor Agreement, Ex. B, R. 2-1, PageID # 42). Likewise, BSVI is also required to make sure that the blind vendor “offers a variety of coffee, coffee drinks, smoothies, tea, sandwiches, and other food products and provides choices of bread, meats, cheeses[,] and toppings for customizable sandwich options.” (Id. at PageID # 43). While the University is not responsible for maintenance or repair of BSVI-owned equipment, it agreed to “[e]nsure that all food storage space can be locked and/or appropriately secured by OOD/BSVI’s Vendor to prevent tampering or theft.” (Id. at PageID # 45). The parties shared a “[j]oint[]” obligation “to maintain the security of the premises.” (Id. at PageID # 46). The other relevant contract is the Operator Agreement. Ohio Admin. Code 3304:1-2101(G)–(H). Cyrus entered into a 1993 Operator’s Agreement with BSVI; the contract assigned Cyrus Facility #304, which includes multiple vending sites, including a kiosk known as Market Café, on the Health Science Campus.3 A 2010 Operator Agreement superseded the 1993 version and remains in effect. 2 At the district court, the parties disagreed as to whether Cyrus was an intended beneficiary or an incidental beneficiary to the Grantor Agreement. This question is not argued on appeal. 3 Consistent with the mini-RSA, Cyrus’ compensation is derived from the net profits. (Ex. A, R. 2-1, PageID # 37). -3- No. 20-3913, Cyrus v. Univ. of Toledo, et al.