In the course of ordinary business (after the implementation of the development franchise agreement), the partnership owns and operates only the number of „Bojangles` Famous Chicken „N Biscuits“ restaurants for the term and within the Houston, Texas area. The exact geographic boundaries of the market area are subject to the final agreement with Bojangles of America, Inc. and are defined in the franchise development agreement by General Partner on behalf of the partnership. I had a long phone conversation with Dick Gilman on the morning of the 3rd. December, of which we entered into a „Handshake“ telephone agreement and agreed that a letter of agreement in the corporation of the points on which we had agreed would be concluded as soon as possible during the week by Eric [Bojangles` lawyer] and that Dick [Richard Gillman] would sign the franchise development contract and pay the $5,000 payment fee for each store. , which needs to be developed. execution. This franchise development agreement, along with all annexes and attachments, contains the full agreement and agreement between the parties regarding the purpose of this agreement and replaces all prior and oral agreements between the parties, if any. There are no other agreements, assurances or guarantees than those that are exposed to, planned or mentioned. The writings are also incomplete because they do not specify the exact territory of the franchise or the development plan, both of which were essential terms of the contract. Failure to comply with the timetable is grounds for default and the applicants recognize the importance of the territorial issue. Later that day, Winarick Gillman said Fulk had said the deal between Gillman and Donald Schupak, Bojangles` lawyer, should be „developed.“ Gillman then spoke by phone with Schupak and, as Gillman states in an affidavit, accepted Bojangles` position „on all issues.“ He said: „Schupak and I got a meeting of minds on all the essential terms of the contract.“ He did not discuss the territorial boundaries or development plan with Schupak because he believed that „these points had already been agreed between Winarick and Fulk.“ In his impeachment, Gillman said he asked Schupak by phone: „Do we have a handshake market?“ According to Gillman, Schupak`s response was: „Yes, we have a handshake agreement today and now.“ We agree with the district court that the complainants did not have a three-legged issue. The complainants allege that the commitment was given to them during the telephone conversation on December 3; However, as explained above, the entire history of negotiations between the parties highlighted the fact that any commitment or agreement at that time was conditional on the signing of a written contract.