Hello, I need help answering these questions. please read the Baer v. Chase case attached below

Question: Chase said he would take care of Baer and pay him in a manner commensurate with the true value of his services. Don't those statements show Chase's intent to compensate Baer? Question: Why does the court rule in favor of Chase and let him avoid payment? Question: There are methods to determine what fair compensation would be. The trial court could hear evidence about what others who've made similar creative contributions to television shows are paid, or hear expert testimony from people in the business about the customary payment for services similar to Baer's. Why doesn't the court try to arrive at a method of fair compensation? Third Circuit Court Appolo.2004 Facts: David Chase was a television writer-producer with many credits, including a detective series called The Rockford Files. He became interested in a new program, set in New Jersey, about a "mob boss in therapy." a concept he eventually developed into the Sopranos. Robert Baer was a prosecutor in New Jersey who wanted to write for television. He submitted a Rookford Files scripe to Chase, who agreed to meet with Baer. When they met, Baer pitched a different idex, concerning "a film or television series about the New Jersey Matin." He did not realize Chase was already working on such an idea. Later that year, Chase visited New Jersey. Baer arranged meetings for Chase with local detectives and prosecutors, who provided the producer with information, material, and personal stor ies about their experiences with organized crime. Detective Thomas Koczur drove Chase and Baer to various New Jersey locations and introduced Chase to Tony Spirito Spirito shared stories about loan sharking, power struggles between family members connected with the mob, and two colorful individuals known as Big Pussy and Little Pussy, both of whom later became characters on the show Back in Los Angeles, Chase wrote and sent to Baer a draft of the first Sopranos teleplay. Baer called Chase and commented on the script. The two spoke at least four times that year, and Baer sent Chase a letter about the script. When The Sopranor became a hit television show, Baer sued Chase. He alleged that on three separate occa- sions Chase had agreed that if the program succeeded, Chase would take care of Baer, and would "remunerate Baer in a manner commensurate to the true value of his services. This happened twice on the phone, Baer claimed, and once during Chase's visit to New Jersey, The understanding was that if the show failed, Chase would owe noching Chase never paid Baer anything. The district court dismissed the case, holding that the alleged promises were too vague to be enforced. Baer appealed Issue: Was Chase's promise definite enough to be enforced? Excerpts from Judge Greenberg's Decision: A contract arises from offer and acceptance, and must be sufficiently definice so that the performance to be rendered by each party can be ascertained with reasonable certaincy. Therefore parties create an enforceable contract when they agree on its essential terms and manifest an intent that the terms bind them. If parties to an agreement do not agree on one or more essential terms of the purported agreement courts generally hold it to be unenforceable New Jersey law deems the price term, that is, the amount of compensation, an essential term of any contract. An agreement lacking definiteness of price, however, is not uncnforceable if the parties specify a practicable method by which they can determine the amount. However, in the absence of an agreement as to the manner or method of determining compensation the purported agreement is invalid. Additionally, the duration of the contract is deemed an essential term and therefore any agreement must be sufficiently definitive to allow a court to determine the agreed upon length of the contrac tual relationship Baer premises his argument on his view that New Jersey should disregard the well-established requirement of definiteness in its contract law when the subject- matter of the contract is an idea submission." (However, New Jersey precedent does not support Baer's attempt to carve out an exception to traditional principles of contract law for submission-of-idea cases. The New Jersey courts have not provided even the slightest indication that they intend to depart from their well established requirement that enforceability of a contract requires definitences with respect to the essential terms of that contract. Nothing in the record indicates that the parties agreed on how, how much, where, or for what period Chase would compensate Baer. The parties did not dis- cuss who would determine the "true value of Baer's services, when the "true value" would be calculated, or what variables would go into such a calculation. There was no discussion or agreement as to the meaning of "success" of The Sopranos. There was no discussion how "profits" were to be defined. There was no contemplation of dates of commencement or termination of the contract. And again, nothing in Baer's or Chase's conduct, or the sur- rounding circumstances of the relationship, shed light on, or answers, any of these questions. Affirmed