The Jannuschs operated Festival Foods, a business 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 operation. 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 opportunity 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 possession 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 remained 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 income from the business, purchasing inventory, replacing 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 sufficiently definite to be enforceable. Are they correct?