Typically, a contract will be the written version of the agreement. An agreement without a contract is often not enforceable by law. The intent to create legal relations in this instance is clear on the part of EndZone, as per their email, but is not clear on the part of Maverick. The email iterates the consideration, timing and price contained within the agreement. However, EndZone would need to prove that Maverick has agreed to these terms. Maverick did not respond to the email, and only purchased $1,000 worth of goods over that time period. EndZone must provide a preponderance of evidence and it is unlikely that a sent email, unresponded to, and allegation of an oral agreement are unlikely to constitute that preponderance. Given that EndZone will be unable to demonstrate clear consideration in the form specific products and specific prices for those products, they will be unable to prove a contract, but rather only an agreement. The agreement would in theory be followed up with a contract that outlined the specifics, but this has not happened.
It could, however, be determined that there was a course of dealing established between the two parties wherein such a method of agreement was considered standard. In other words, the companies had previously established contracts by making oral agreements confirmed by one party via email, then this course of dealing could be considered to be a valid contract. In absence of evidence of course of dealing,...
These two parties could have established a contract orally. However, for this to be valid, the burden is on EndZone to provide evidence of such. This requires witnesses, communications between the parties and actions on the part of both parties. EndZone has no witnesses, one sent email and they were the only party that undertook any action towards the fulfillment of the contract. Maverick's purchase of $1,000 worth of goods in 18 months is unlikely to constitute action towards the purchase of $400,000 worth of goods, given the difference in dollar values.
In this situation, Maverick is correct. An agreement was made, rather than an enforceable oral contract. The agreement is itself not binding. There were some terms laid out in the agreement, but without action on Maverick's part, acceptance of the email, further correspondence or any other evidence that Maverick had intended to establish legal relations, there was no valid contract. It is also questionable whether or the vague consideration ("sports equipment") is sufficient. It is unlikely that EndZone would be able to enforce this agreement and receive remedy from Maverick.
Works Cited:
Uniform Commercial Code. Retrieved July 4, 2009 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/article1.htm
