or requirements term like the parties' previous contracts. More significantly, the fax was silent as to any quantity terms (output, requirements, or otherwise) for the years 1999 and 2000. As a result, the district court declined Simmons's invitation to consider parol evidence of the parties' course of dealing to supply the missing quantity term. So must we. [W]here the writing relied upon to form the contract of sale is totally silent as to quantity, parol evidence cannot be used to supply the missing quantity term.” Thomas J. Kline, Inc. v. Lorillard, Inc., 878 F.2d 791, 794 (4th Cir.1989) (quotation omitted) (applying UCC § 2-201); Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 908 F.Supp. 1084, 1091 (D.Conn.1995); cf. Essco Geometric v. Harvard Indus., 46 F.3d 718, 728 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). II. The Promissory Estoppel Claim Simmons
holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury on quantity was harmless in part because the testimony regarding quantity was extensive detailed and uncontroverted holding that a quantity term was present because the writing referred to the entire project holding that where the indictment charged drug quantity but drug quantity was not submitted to the jury the district court erred in using drug quantity to increase the penalty beyond the twentyyear maximum of  841b1c holding that when the indictment charges that a certain minimum quantity of drugs is involved in the offense proof of that quantity is a fourth element of the offense holding that a contract without a minimum quantity term is unenforceable for lack of consideration and mutuality