Opinion ID: 901027
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: [¶ 2.] In 1996 and 1997, Balster and Wipf had express contracts relating to several business arrangements. First, they entered into a share agreement on livestock. The parties agree that Balster was to provide cows and bulls, pasture, hayland, and machinery. Balster was also to provide fuel and twine and maintain his equipment for putting up hay. Wipf was to provide the labor required for the care of the livestock. Wipf was to receive twenty percent of the calf crop, and Balster eighty percent. The parties disagree as to Balster's compliance with the livestock agreement. In particular, Wipf claims that Balster failed to keep his machinery in working order. [¶ 3.] The second express contract between them was a share crop agreement. Balster was to provide one-third of the fertilizer, herbicide and similar items with Wipf providing two-thirds. Wipf was to provide machinery and labor. Upon harvest, Wipf was to receive two-thirds of the crop, and Balster one-third of the crop. [¶ 4.] The final express contract between Balster and Wipf was a rental agreement. Balster rented Wipf pasture-land on an annual basis to be paid in two installments. In 1996, Balster provided such pasture and Wipf paid the rent. In 1997, however, Wipf paid the first installment but refused to pay the second in the amount of $6,450.00. [¶ 5.] Balster filed suit against Wipf to recover the rent due. Wipf counterclaimed asserting that Balster owed him for services and equipment provided to Balster. Wipf claimed that what Balster owed him offsets the rent he owed. Specifically, Wipf claimed the following itemizations: 1. Grain drills  1995  400 acres @ $4.00/acre $ 1,600.00 2. Corn planting  May 1996  250 acres @ $7.00/acre $ 1,750.00 3. Baling  July 1996  850 bales @ $5.00/bale 4,250.00 4. Hay cutting  July 1996  200 acres @ $7.00/acre 1,400.00 5. Cultivating  July 1996  500 acres @ $5.00/acre 2,500.00 6. Combine corn  1996  150 hours @ $10.00/hour 1,500.00 7. Stack wagon  1996 & 1997  200 stacks @ $5.00/hour 1,000.00 8. Haybine  1996 & 1997  320 acres @ $4.00/acre 1,280.00 9. Baler  1996 & 1997  600 bales @ $2.50/bale 1,500.00 10. Tractor  1996 & 1997  200 hours @ $20.00/hour 4,000.00 11. Bull rent  June-September 1997  2 bulls @ $500/bull 1,000.00 12. Corn planting  1997  320 acres @ $7.00/acre 2,240.00 13. Spring wheat planting  1997  260 acres @ $10.00/acre 2,600.00 14. Winter wheat planting  1997  380 acres @ $10.00/acre 3,800.00 15. Dog care  600 days @ $2.00/day 1,200.00 16. Sheep care  1996 & 1997  400days @ $5.00/day 2,000.00 17. Hay/Grain loading  1996 & 1997 1,300.00 __________ $34,920.00 [1] [¶ 6.] Balster amended his complaint by including, in addition to the pasture rent, the following: 1. Disking  Fall 1995  250 acres @ $7.50/acre $ 1,875.00 2. Combine rent  1996  450 acres @ $10.00/acre 4,500.00 3. Electric bill  1996 800.00 4. Truck rent  1996 & 1997 1,000.00 5. Sprayer rent  1996 & 1997  200 acres @ $4.00/acre 800.00 6. Stackmover & hay wagon rent  1996 & 1997 1,000.00 7. Assistance for haying & hauling  1996 & 1997 3,000.00 8. House rent  1996 & 1997  $200/month 2,400.00 9. Swather rent  1997  245 acres @ $4.00/acre 980.00 10. Disk & tractor  1997  100 acres @ $5.50/acre 550.00 11. Disking  1997  180 acres @ $7.50/acre 1,350.00 12. Grain bin rent  1000 bu Millet 6mo..03 mo. 180.00 13. Grain bin rent  2000 bu what [sic] 3mo..03 mo. 180.00 14. House rent  January 1998 200.00 15. Electricity & water  January 1998 200.00 __________ $19,015.00 [2] Pasture rent  second installment 1997 6,450.00 _________ 25,465.00 [¶ 7.] Balster moved for summary judgment, withdrawing all his claims (nos. 1-15 listed in ¶ 6) except for the pasture rent. In ruling on the summary judgment motion as to Wipf's claims, the trial court ruled that there was no evidence of consent which is a required element for a valid contract. The court determined that the parties discussed but never reached an agreement with regard to the items for which Wipf sought compensation. Specifically, the court ruled that Wipf's counterclaim be dismissed in whole because there was no consent and, therefore, no contractual agreement either orally or in writing regarding the matters that Wipf is claiming Balster owes him.