Legal research can take you in odd directions. Today, for example, we learn that a “weaner pig” is a very young pig that has just been weaned from its mother. You must raise and sell a lot of them to make a living. Farmers who raise pigs to full size need to sell fewer animals to get by.

Farmer Charles Lohman talked extensively with John Wagner about raising weaner pigs for a new “pork network” that Wagner, the owner of Swine Services, was thinking of putting together. Lohman eventually decided to join Wagner, and convert his pig farm to one that specialized in raising weaner pigs. He needed to borrow money to remodel his farm, and he needed to convince his bankers that, if they loaned him the necessary money, he would be in a reasonable position to repay them. 

He told Wagner that he “would need something to show his banker”. Wagner faxed over a document with several blanks entitled “Weaner Pig Purchase Agreement”. It said, in part, “PRODUCER agrees to supply ____________ weaner pigs weekly.” When he received the fax, Lohman wrote “300” in the blank. After showing the fax to his banker, Lohman was able to secure his loan. He never sent Wagner a copy of the document with the blank filled in. 

For a while, everyone was happy. Lohman shipped weaner pigs to Wagner and was paid $28 each for them. But eventually, problems arose. The price Wagner offered for weaner pigs dropped to $18, and Wagner never assembled the promised pork network, which Lohman argued would have helped to boost prices. Lohman sued Wagner for breach of contract. 

The trial court found that the agreement did not meet the UCC’s requirement that a quantity term be included, that it was unenforceable, and that Lohman was entitled to nothing. Lohman appealed.

Questions:

Does Lohman have an enforceable agreement with Wagner?