Ackerley Media Group, Inc., claimed to have a three-season advertising Team Sponsorship Agreement (TSA) with Sharp Electronics Corporation to promote Sharp products at all Seattle Supersonics NBA basketball home games. Sharp contended that a valid agreement did not exist for the third season (2000–2001) because a material price term was missing, thus resulting in an unenforceable “agreement to agree.” The terms of the TSA for the 2000–2001 third season called for a base payment of $144,200 and an annual increase “not to exceed 6% [and] to be mutually agreed upon by the parties.” No “mutually agreed” increase was negotiated by the parties. Ackerley seeks payment for the base price of $144,200 only. Sharp contends that since no price was agreed upon for the season, the entire TSA is unenforceable, and it is not obligated to pay for the 2000–2001 season. Is Sharp correct? [Ackerley Media Group, Inc. v Sharp Electronics Corp., 170 F Supp 2d 445 (SDNY)]