Case Name: WINTER HAVEN CITRUS GROWERS ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. CAMPBELL & SONS FRUIT COMPANY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2000-11-15
Citations: 773 So. 2d 96
Docket Number: No. 2D99-1343
Parties: WINTER HAVEN CITRUS GROWERS ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. CAMPBELL & SONS FRUIT COMPANY, Appellee.
Judges: BLUE, J., Concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 773
Pages: 96–98

Head Matter:
WINTER HAVEN CITRUS GROWERS ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. CAMPBELL & SONS FRUIT COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 2D99-1343.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Nov. 15, 2000.
Mark N. Miller of Lane, Trohn, Bertrand & Vreeland, P.A., Lakeland, and Christine C. Daly of Bradley Johnson Law Firm, P.A., Lake Wales, for Appellant.
Debra J. Sutton of The Law Offices of Debra J. Sutton, P.A., Bartow, for Appel-lee.

Opinion:
WHATLEY, Judge.
Winter Haven Citrus Growers Association (WHCGA) appeals a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding that it breached an oral contract to pack fruit for Campbell & Sons Fruit Company (C & S). We reverse because the jury's verdict is not supported by competent substantial evidence.
For approximately 20 years, WHCGA packed C & S's fruit without the benefit of a written contract. In September 1996, WHCGA informed C & S that it would not pack its fruit for the 1996-1997 season. C & S filed suit against WHCGA for breach of contract and damages.
"Whether a contract is oral or written, it is essential that the parties mutually agree upon the material terms." Holloway v. Gutman, 707 So.2d 356, 357 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 722 So.2d 192 (Fla.1998). "Mutual assent is an absolute condition precedent to the formation of a contract." State v. Family Bank of Hallandale, 623 So.2d 474, 479 (Fla.1998). C & S failed to prove the existence of an enforceable oral contract because it failed to prove that it and WHCGA had agreed upon such material terms as the amount of fruit to be packed and the time for performance. See Metropolitan Dade County v. Estate of Hernandez, 591 So.2d 1124 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (for agreement to be legally enforceable, it must be firm or definite in its essential terms). As a result, C & S was under no obligation to bring any fruit whatsoever to WHCGA for packing. Consequently, the alleged oral contract was also not enforceable because it was illusory. See Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Department of Coirections, 471 So.2d 4, 5 (Fla.1985) ('Where one party retains to itself the option of fulfilling or declining to fulfill its obligations under the contract, there is no valid contract and neither side may be bound."). The oral contract sued upon, based on the record, was nothing more than a series of casual conversations between representatives of the parties. Even though there was testimony that this was the custom in the industry, that custom cannot change the law of contract.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court enter final judgment in favor of WHCGA on the oral contract claim.
C & S has filed a motion for rehearing reminding this court that its complaint against WHCGA also included a count for promissory estoppel. Because promisory estoppel has not been addressed by either party in this appeal, we take no position on that count of C & S's complaint.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
BLUE, J., Concurs.
PARKER, A.C.J., Concurs specially.