The Jannuschs operated Festival Foods, a busi- ness that served concessions at festivals and events throughout Illinois and Indiana from late April to late October each year. The assets of the business included a truck and servicing trailer and equipment such as refrigerators and freezers, roasters, chairs and tables, fountain service, and signs and lighting equipment. Naffziger and her mother were interested in purchasing the business. They met several times with the Jannuschs and observed the business in op- eration. According to Mr. Jannusch, the parties had entered into an oral agreement on August 13, 2005, to sell Festival Foods to the Naffzigers for $150,000. For the $150,000, the Naffzigers would receive the truck and trailer, all necessary equipment, and the op- portunity to work at event locations secured by the Jannuschs. The Naffzigers paid $10,000 immediately, with the balance to be paid when they received their loan money from the bank. The Naffzigers took pos- session of Festival Foods the next day and operated Festival Foods for the remainder of the 2005 season. The insurance and titles to the truck and trailer re- mained in Mr. Jannusch’s name because he had not yet received the purchase price from the Naffzigers. Naffziger acknowledged that an oral agreement to purchase Festival Foods for $150,000 existed but stated that she could not recall specifically making an oral agreement on any particular date. The parties agreed that the Naffzigers would run Festival Foods as they pursued buying the business. The Naffzigers took possession of Festival Foods, receiving the in- come from the business, purchasing inventory, re- placing equipment, paying taxes on the business, and paying employees. The income from Festival Foods was lower than the Naffzigers expected, and two days after the business season ended, they returned Festival Foods to the storage facility where Mr. Jannusch had stored it in the past. The Jannuschs brought an action for breach of an oral contract against the Naffzigers. The Naffzigers claimed that the deal was not suffi- ciently definite to be enforceable. Are they correct? Solution In this case the Jannuschs and the Naffzigers entered into an oral agreement, whereby the festival food business owned by the Jannuschs will be purchased by the Naffzigers for $150,000. This oral agreement was reasonable, and made in good faith by both the parties. The verbal agreement involved an offer (by the Naffzigers) and an acceptance (by the Jannuschs). There was mutual consideration present in the case as well - the Naffzigers had paid a downpayment of $10,000, took possession of the Festival Foods and operated it for what was left for the 2005 season. So, the Naffzigers are not correct when they say that the deal was not sufficiently definite to be enforceable. This agreement is enforceable..

1. The Jannuschs operated Festival Foods, a busi- ness that served concessions at festivals and
events throughout Illinois and Indiana from late April to late October each year. The assets of the
business included a truck and servicing trailer and equipment such as refrigerators and freezers,
roasters, chairs and tables, fountain service, and signs and lighting
equipment. Naffziger and her mother were interested in purchasing the business. They met
several times with the Jannuschs and observed the business in op- eration. According to Mr.
Jannusch, the parties had entered into an oral agreement on August 13, 2005, to sell Festival
Foods to the Naffzigers for $150,000. For the $150,000, the Naffzigers would receive the truck
and trailer, all necessary equipment, and the op- portunity to work at event locations secured by
the Jannuschs. The Naffzigers paid $10,000 immediately, with the balance to be paid when they
received their loan money from the bank. The Naffzigers took pos- session of Festival Foods the
next day and operated Festival Foods for the remainder of the 2005 season. The insurance and
titles to the truck and trailer re- mained in Mr. Jannusch’s name because he had not yet received
the purchase price from the Naffzigers. Naffziger acknowledged that an oral agreement to
purchase Festival Foods for $150,000 existed but stated that she could not recall specifically
making an oral agreement on any particular date. The parties agreed that the Naffzigers would
run Festival Foods as they pursued buying the business. The Naffzigers took possession of
Festival Foods, receiving the in- come from the business, purchasing inventory, re- placing
equipment, paying taxes on the business, and paying employees. The income from Festival
Foods was lower than the Naffzigers expected, and two days after the business season ended,
they returned Festival Foods to the storage facility where Mr. Jannusch had stored it in the past.
The Jannuschs brought an action for breach of an oral contract against the Naffzigers. The
Naffzigers claimed that the deal was not suffi- ciently definite to be enforceable. Are they
correct?
Solution
In this case the Jannuschs and the Naffzigers entered into an oral agreement, whereby the festival
food business owned by the Jannuschs will be purchased by the Naffzigers for $150,000. This
oral agreement was reasonable, and made in good faith by both the parties. The verbal agreement
involved an offer (by the Naffzigers) and an acceptance (by the Jannuschs). There was mutual
consideration present in the case as well - the Naffzigers had paid a downpayment of $10,000,
took possession of the Festival Foods and operated it for what was left for the 2005 season.
So, the Naffzigers are not correct when they say that the deal was not sufficiently definite to be
enforceable. This agreement is enforceable.