Please explain the reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the outcome of the dispute.

\fwhich was an essential element of the agreement. In response, Domingo asserts that a reasonable price can be implied. She also asserts that submitting numbers was not an essential term of the agreement. We agree with Domingo. When all other elements of a contract have been met, a court may imply a reasonable price. According to Domingo's a'idavit, she was an experienced lottery player and estimated that playing Lotto Texas and Mega Millions for the month of April 2006 would have cost approximately $20 to $25. According to the evidence, Mega Millions was played every Tuesday and Friday and Lotto Texas was played every Wednede and Saturday. Looking at a calendar for April 2006 at $1 per ticket, there were eight drawings for Mega Millions and nine drawings for Lotto Texas, for a total cost of $1? per participant. Thus, a reasonable price could have been implied. Whether a term forms an essential element of a contract depends primarily upon the intent of the parties. The question is whether the parties regarded the term as a vitally important ingredient of their bargain. Mitchell contends that submitting numbers was an essential term of the agreement and that without Domingo complying, there was no valid contract. However, the evidence suggests that submitting numbers for the April drawings was not an essential element of the contract. Copies of emails established that different numbers were selected on the day after the LGroup met for dinner to decide on a price and submit numbers. Members of the LGroup were also notied by mail and given a deadline of noon on April 1st in which to pick different numbers. Thus, any numbers submitted at the meeting on March 30th were an uncertainty as they were subject to being changed and thus, could not have been regarded by the parties as an essential element of the contract. According to Domingo, she and Mitchell frequently participated in lottery pools with coworkers. They occasionally covered for each other and when Mitchell would advance Domingo's share, Domingo would promptly reimburse her. Shondra Stewart and Ellen Clemons, coworkers of Domingo and NIitchell, both gave deposition testimony that Cindy Ruff, another coworker, claimed she was present when Mitchell agreed to cover for Domingo's share of the April 2006 lottery tickets. *5??? This summaryjudgment evidence, coupled with Mitchell and Domingo's conduct and course of prior dealings with one another, is su'icient to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning the offer . . . element of the alleged contract between Mitchell and Domingo. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings