Opinion ID: 222490
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Oral Most-Favored-Nations Contract

Text: Multiut claims that it had an understanding, dating back to the mid-1990s, that Dynegy would charge it either (i) a price equal to or ½ cent per therm higher than the index price, or (ii) the lowest price contemporaneously being charged by Dynegy to any of Multiut's competitors. It alleges that Dynegy fostered this understanding by repeatedly assuring one of Multiut's employees that Multiut was getting the best price there is, though it acknowledges that Dynegy refused its requests to include a most-favored-nations clause in either the 1988 or 1994 agreements. Multiut claims that Dynegy violated part (i) of the understanding by charging Multiut five to twelve cents more than the index price per therm, and violated part (ii) by charging Multiut's competitor Nicor Energy lower prices than it charged Multiut. Unilateral understandings are not enough to give rise to an enforceable oral contract in Illinois. A feeling of certainty. . . that a party in position to contract would surely agree to terms present in the situation disclosed, does not evoke a contract from a plausible situation for contract. The agreement must actually be made by the parties to the alleged contract. It must be shown that those parties selected and concurred in the terms of the contract, or no contract exists. Richton v. Farina, 14 Ill.App.3d 697, 303 N.E.2d 218, 223 (1973) (quoting Bartlett v. Lauff, 271 Ill.App. 551, 554 (Ill.App.Ct.1933)). In order for there to be a contract between parties there must be a meeting of the minds or mutual assent as to the terms of the contract. Midland Hotel Corp. v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp., 118 Ill.2d 306, 113 Ill.Dec. 252, 515 N.E.2d 61, 65 (1987). No reasonable jury could find any such meeting or mutual assent here. Although Multiut has asserted that the essential terms of the alleged contract were definite and certain, id., it has not pointed to any evidence from which a jury could infer that Dynegy assented to them. Vague statements about best prices do not an agreement make, particularly where the proponent of the contract cannot pinpoint even the year in which the agreement was purportedly reached. Nor does the parties' course of conduct tally with the existence of such an agreement; if Multiut were guaranteed a per-therm price of index plus ½ cent, there would have been no reason for it to get price quotes from Dynegy or repeatedly seek fixed pricing. Summary judgment was properly entered in Dynegy's favor on this counterclaim.