You Be the Judge Facts: Legal research can LOHMAN V. WAGNER argued would have helped take you in odd directions. Today, for example, we 862 A.2d 1042 to boost prices. Lohman Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2004 sued Wagner for breach learn that a "weaner pig" of contract. is a very young pig that has The trial court found just been weaned from its that the agreement did not mother. You must raise meet the UCC's require- and sell a lot of them to make a living. Farmers who raise ment that a quantity term be included, that it was unen- pigs to full size need to sell fewer animals to get by. forceable, and that Lohman was entitled to nothing. Loh- Farmer Charles Lohman talked extensively with John man appealed. Wagner about raising weaner pigs for a new "pork net- You Be the Judge: Does Lohman have an enforceable agree- work" that Wagner, the owner of Swine Services, was ment with Wagner thinking of putting together. Lohman eventually decided Argument for Lohman: Your honor, I'm not a ham, and to join Wagner and convert his pig farm to one that I won't "boar" you with a long story. Our arguments, specialized in raising weaner pigs. He needed to borrow briefly stated, are these. money to remodel his farm, and he needed to convince First, the UCC's Statute of Frauds, and its require- his bankers that, if they loaned him the necessary money, ment that a quantity term be included, should not apply. he would be in a reasonable position to repay them. This agreement is essentially one for services, and not for He told Wagner that he "would need something to goods, My client furnishes housing for weaner pigs, labors show his banker." Wagner faxed over a document with to raise them, and ships them to the defendant, His several blanks entitled "Weaner Pig Purchase Agreement." services are the largest part of this contract. It said, in part, "PRODUCER agrees to supply _weaner Even if this contract is deemed to be a sale of goods, pigs weekly." When he received the fax, Lohman wrote there is a quantity term included in the Weaner Pig "300" in the blank. After showing the fax to his banker, Purchase Agreement-300. The number was entered by Lohman was able to secure his loan, He never sent Wagner my client as a good-faith estimate of the number of ani- a copy of the document with the blank filled in. mals he could produce. For awhile, everyone was happy. Lohman shipped In any event, UCC 2-306 does not require a quantity weaner pigs to Wagner and was paid $28 cach for them. term in this case. This agreement was an output contract. But eventually, problems arose. The price Wagner offered Lohman sold every weaner pig he produced to Wagner. for weaner pigs dropped to $18, and Wagner never and Wagner accepted and paid for them. Output con- assembled the promised pork network, which Lohman tracts, by definition, do not include specific quantity terms: they merely obligate a seller to sell all of his output market. Someone "labored" to make my shoes, my neck- to the buyer. tie, and my pen. But all are goods, This case amounts to nothing more or less than a In a UCC contract, a quantity must be written by the greedy man trying to reap what he did not sow and defendants, but here the "300" was written by the plain- to use legal technicalities to hog all the profits for riff. It was never communicated to my client. He never himself. agreed to it, or even had a chance to review it. The same Argument for Wagner: My counterpart has managed to holds true for the claim that this is an output contract, My make several nifty pig-related references in his argument, client never agreed to buy all the pigs that Lohman but nevertheless. no contract exists. The UCC does apply produced. to this agreement, because pigs are clearly goods. Most My opponent is grasping at straws. Which pigs eat. I products require some labor to assemble and bring to think. Get it? Oh, forget it