Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): transaction was entered into by Greenheart and the Browns for a commercial purpose. Because the Browns are the prevailing party on appeal, the Browns are entitled to attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-120(3). V. Conclusion The judgment of the district court is affirmed. The Browns are awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal as the prevailing party. Chief Justice BURDICK, Justices EISMANN, J. JONES and HORTON concur. 1 . The parties concede that the instant water rights case is not governed by Title 42, Chapter 14 addressed by the omitted portion of Idaho Code section 6-401. 2 . Extrinsic evidence regarding the meaning of an agreement is also admissible where fraud or mutual mistake has been plead. Bilbao v. Krettinger, 91 Idaho 69, 72, 415 P.2d 712, 715 (1966) 
 Holding statements: (A) holding parol evidence is admissible to show mistake (B) holding the parol evidence rule presumes finality with respect to the written terms of the agreement only and does not prevent consideration of parol evidence concerning the duration of contract (C) holding the parol evidence rule not pertinent to the present issue because a contract may be clear and unambiguous as far as it goes and yet may not express the true agreement of the parties by reason of mutual mistake (D) holding that mutual mistake is ground for reformation when as here the minds of the parties have met contractually but because of a mutual mistake the written contract between the parties is wanting in expression or execution to evince the actual and binding contractual intent of the parties (E) holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties
Output (English): holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties