Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. I N TH E UN I TED STATES COU RT OF APPEA LS F O R T H E F IF T H C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 20746 R U D YLO V E , doi ng busi nes s as R udy Love D i st r ibut i ng C om pany , P l a i n ti ff

- A p p ell a n t v. D F S TA UFF ER B I S CUI T COM PA NY, I NC , D efen da n t- A pp el l ee
v. BARBC O, I NC, I nt e r ve no r- Appe l l ant

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas B ef ore R E AV L E Y , JO L L Y , an d W IE N E R , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Vani l l a w af

e r s a r e a tt he ce nt e rof t hi s di s put e . Rudy Lov e ( “ Lov e ” ) a nd B arbco, I n c. ( “ B arbco” ) cl ai m t h at D . F . Stau f fer B iscu itC om pa n y, I n c. ( “ St auf fe r” ) a gr e e d t o s e l lt he s nac ks t o t he m , b utSt auf fe rdi s ag r e e s . The United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20746

2 d i stri ct cou r t s id e dw i th S tau ff er a n dgra n ted su m m a ryj u d gm en t w i th ou t a w r i t t e n o pi ni o n. Lo ve a nd Barbc o no w app eal . A f t e rr e vi e w i ng t he r e c o r d, h eari n g oralargu m en t , an d consi deri n g t h e c on t ext of neg ot i ati on s, w e agree w i t h t h e o t h e r w i s e t a c i t u r n d i s t r i c tc o u r tt h a tt h e r e wa s n o c o n t r a c ta n da f f i r m. Fi r st , Love and B arbc o c onc ede d ator alar gum ent

— and w e a gr ee — t hat t h e di st ri ctcourtha d j u ri sdi ct i on , so w e proceed t o t h e m eri t s. W he n ne go t i at i o ns t ak e pl ac e i n wri t i ng, w e c an e va l uat e o f fe ra nd a c c e p ta n c e a s a m a tt e r o f la w . G il b e r t v . Pettiette , 838 S. W . 2d 890, 893 (Tex. App. 1 99 2) . Lo ve a nd Barbc o po i ntt o a M ay3 , 2 00 6, e - m ai lf r o m a St au f

fer em pl oye e a nd char ac t er i ze i tas a y ear - l ong f i r m of fer . W e di sa gr ee . Texas l aw ca p s f i rm off ers a t t h i rty d a ys . W e th i n k a m ore re a son a b l e interp reta ti on i s to rea dthe e-m a i las a t bes t a m od i fi ca ti on of a p rev i ou s rejected off er, l i m i ted to ac c ept ance w i t hi n t hi r t y days j ust as t he pre vi ous of fer r equi r ed. N ei t herLove no rBarbc o a c c e pt e d w i t h i n t hatt i m e . W he n St auf fe ro f fe r e d t o ho no rt he e x p ir e dp r ic e if B a rb c o w o u lds h o w th e co n tr a c t t o S ta u ffe r , B a rb c o a p p a r e n tly fai l e d t o do s o . W e c an f i nd n o St auf

fe ro f fe rt hatBarbc o a c c e pt e d. W e fi n dL ov e a n dB arbc o’ s oth er a rg u m en ts si m i l a rl y u n p ersu a sive. F i rst, al t hough w e agr ee t hat t he di st r i c tc our ter r ed i n rul i ng su asp o n teo n a ll o f th e ir c l ai m s w he n o nl y pr e s e nt e d wi t h a m o t i o n forsu m m ar y j udg m e nto n t he contractcl ai m , t h e err o r w as ha rm l ess. Secon d, w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcourt a b u s e di t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f u s i n gt o c o n t i n u e d i s c o v e r yi s a c l o s e ri s s u e , b u twe ar e no tc o nvi nc e d t hatf ur t he rdi s c o ve r y w o ul d ha ve c hang e d t he o ut c o m e . Any errorw as ha rm l ess. Th i rd, t h e di st ri ct court di d n otabu se i t s di scr et i on w h en it d e n ie dL o v e a n dB a rb c o ’ s m o tio n to a m e n dth e p le a d i n g s . T h e yh a da m p le ti m e to a m en d , an dthe i r am en d m en ts w ou l dh a ve h a dn o effect. F o rt h e s e r e a s o n s , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.