## Facts

- A potato farmer (Cagle) signed a written contract to buy seed potatoes from a produce company (Schmieding), paying part up front and owing the balance after harvest.
- Cagle planted and cultivated the crop but did not harvest most of it and did not pay most of the post-harvest balance.
- Schmieding sued for breach of the written seed-potato contract seeking the unpaid balance.
- Cagle counterclaimed for fraud/misrepresentation, alleging Schmieding represented it would buy his resulting potato crop and later refused.
- Cagle amended to allege a formed and breached crop-purchase contract based largely on two telephone conversations with Schmieding personnel and related communications.
- Cagle presented evidence of terms: approximately 10,000 bags of white potatoes at $5.50 per bag, and all red potatoes grown on 30 acres at the market price at harvest.
- Cagle introduced a letter from Schmieding discussing shipment of “your crop” and requesting notice before shipping so Schmieding could prepare sales orders.
- Cagle asserted Schmieding’s refusal to purchase left him without a market, explaining his failure to harvest/ship and to pay the remaining seed-potato balance.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury finding that an enforceable crop-purchase contract existed despite the absence of a formal written agreement.
2. Whether the alleged crop-purchase agreement was too indefinite (including “market price at harvest”) to be enforceable.
3. Whether Schmieding’s alleged breach of the crop-purchase agreement could support Cagle’s counterclaim and defeat or offset Schmieding’s claim for the unpaid seed-potato balance.
4. Whether the trial court erred in submitting the claims to the jury and in denying post-trial relief in light of the evidentiary record.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment entered on the jury’s verdict in favor of Cagle on his counterclaim and against Schmieding on its complaint.
- The court held the record contained sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Schmieding agreed to purchase Cagle’s crop on stated terms and later breached that agreement.
- The court concluded the terms shown by the evidence were sufficiently definite to allow enforcement, including a market-price term measured at harvest.
- The court deferred to the jury’s resolution of credibility and intent questions and found no reversible error in the trial court’s rulings or denial of post-trial motions.

## Legal Principles

- Contract formation and intent may be proven by oral communications together with written communications and surrounding conduct; the absence of a contemplated formal writing does not bar enforcement if the parties otherwise reached agreement on essential terms.
- A contract is not void for indefiniteness if the parties’ intent and essential terms can be reasonably ascertained; commercial reference points (such as market price at a defined future time) may supply workable standards.
- Evidence of quantity and subject matter that allows the factfinder to determine the scope of performance can satisfy definiteness for a sale-of-goods agreement.
- A party’s material breach of a related agreement may excuse the other party’s performance and/or support damages or offset, depending on the factfinder’s determinations.
- Appellate review of a jury verdict is deferential where substantial evidence supports the verdict and where the trial court has denied post-trial relief.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury finding that the parties formed an enforceable crop-purchase agreement with sufficiently definite terms, that Schmieding breached it, and that the breach supported Cagle’s recovery and defeated Schmieding’s attempt to collect the remaining balance under the seed-potato contract.


H.C. Schmieding Produce Co. v. Cagle, 529 So. 2d 243 (Ala. 1988)