City of Bethel Heights v. Gregory A. Kendrick Rev. Liv. Tr., 515 S.W.3d 135

Appellees (Gregory A. Kendrick Revocable Living Trust and Shelly Kendrick) owned ~86 acres adjacent to Springdale and sought annexation into Springdale under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2001 et seq.
Appellees’ counsel sent Bethel Heights a December 2014 letter requesting "municipal sewer service" — specifically an eight-inch service main for industrial use — if an intercity agreement failed.
Bethel Heights replied in January 2015, stating it would "provide services adequate to service the needs" and would provide an eight-inch connection or stub to an adjacent forced-main wastewater line, and asked appellees for additional zoning/use information.
Appellees did not supply the requested information; Springdale annexed the property in March 2015; Bethel Heights sued Springdale and appellees in April 2015, alleging breach of contract among other claims.
The trial court dismissed all claims except breach of contract against appellees; appellees moved for summary judgment arguing no contract existed, no breach occurred, and performance became impossible after annexation.
The trial court granted summary judgment for appellees; Bethel Heights appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the exchanged letters formed a binding contract	Bethel Heights: appellees’ service request was an offer that Bethel Heights accepted by committing to provide requested services	Appellees: Bethel Heights’ response was a counteroffer (different/service-equivalent) and there was no meeting of minds	No contract — no mutual agreement; response was at most a counteroffer
Whether contract terms were sufficiently definite	Bethel Heights: terms were reasonably certain to require performance	Appellees: Bethel Heights’ letter lacked definite terms (forced main v. eight-inch gravity main)	Terms were indefinite; no reasonable certainty to form enforceable contract
Whether appellees breached by not providing information and by seeking annexation	Bethel Heights: appellees breached by failing to provide requested info and by allowing annexation without notice	Appellees: they made no promise to provide info or refrain from annexation; no mutual obligation existed	No mutual obligation existed; failure to provide info/annexation not a breach
Whether statutory obligations created contract remedies	Bethel Heights: statutory process under Ark. Code gave obligations/enforcement avenues	Appellees: statute does not create a private contract where none exists	Statute not a substitute for a contract; separate statutory challenge was untimely and not before the court on appeal

Dev. & Constr. Mgmt., Inc. v. City of N. Little Rock, 119 S.W.3d 77 (Ark. App. 2003) (summary-judgment burden and proof standards)
City of Dardanelle v. City of Russellville, 277 S.W.3d 562 (Ark. 2008) (contract requires mutual agreement and reasonably certain terms)