The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P operated a 'farrow to finish' pig-raising operation. In approximately December 1997, D was in the process of putting together a network of pork producers and buyers. P and D met numerous times and had a number of telephone conversations concerning P becoming a weaner pig producer. By January 1998, P decided he wanted to convert his farrow to finish operation into a weaner pig facility. P began the conversion process by selling his feeder pigs. In May or June 1998, P began selling weaner pigs to D even though Lohman had not yet remodeled his barn to accommodate an operation that was exclusively devoted to producing weaner pigs. In July 1998, P sought financing. P contacted D and asked D to give him a sample copy of a weaner pig purchase agreement that the pork network would be using. P told D that he was meeting with his banker the next day and needed something to show his banker. D found an old contract he had used before and put together a sample or a draft of a contract to be used in the future. D faxed it to P with several blank lines but D had signed it. The fax cover sheet said: 'Dear Charlie, I trust this will help you in securing financing as we had discussed.' D never intended it to be a contract. P filled in several blanks on the document. Without having any further communications with D, P inserted the quantity '300' as the approximate number of weaner pigs to be supplied weekly. P signed his copy of the agreement as 'Producer' and faxed a copy to his bank. He never sent D a copy of the agreement containing his handwritten alterations. P became a producer of weaner pigs in July 1998 and continued shipping weaner pigs to D at $28 per head as per the “purchase agreement.” In October 1998, D wanted a price decrease to $18 per head because of an extreme drop in market prices for pork. P continued selling pigs to D at $18 per head until March 1999, when P wound down his business. P filed a complaint alleging breach of contract and seeking damages. The trial court applied the UCC and held that the lack of an agreed-upon quantity term made the contract unenforceable. P appealed. P contends the agreement was a contract for the provision of services, not a contract for the sale of goods, and therefore, the UCC does not apply.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.