of essential terms. See W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc. v. Jensen Civil Constr., Inc., 728 So.2d 297, 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (mentioning basic contract principles as applied to an oral contract claim). The fact that nonessential terms remain open is not fatal to an oral contract. See W.R. Townsend Contracting, Inc., 728 So.2d at 301; Winter Haven Citrus Growers Ass’n v. Campbell & Sons Fruit Co., 773 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Finally, a party who asserts an oral contract must prove its existence by a preponderance of the evidence. Batista v. Walter & Bernstein, P.A., 378 So.2d 1321, 1322 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Oral brokerage contracts, like other oral contracts, are valid and enforceable. See Edgar Realty & Assocs., Inc. v. Mobley, 513 So.2d 1350, 1351 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (<HOLDING>); 7 Fla. Jur.2d Brokers § 5 (1997) (providing
holding brokers were not entitled to commission where agreement provided commission was payable at closing of real estate transaction because brokers did not produce clients that closed holding that the real estate brokers law which provided for the investigation of the acts of real estate brokers and the suspension or revocation of their licenses for specified acts is penal and must be strictly construed holding that real estate brokers had duty under real estate broker and salesman license act illrevstat ch 111 paras 57015743 1981 repealed by pa 83191  38 eff jan 1 1984 to disclose relevant information and therefore plaintiff stated cause of action for common law fraud brokers also liable for economic losses under negligent misrepresentation theory because they were in the business of supplying information holding that a real estate brokers allegations of an oral contract with prospective purchasers stated a cause of action recognizing implied private action for violation of the real estate brokers and salesmen license act