Therefore, the ICP controls the outcome of this appeal. The appellants were not employees of Service America on the applicable date. When Service America sold the division, the appellants had left the employ of Service America and became employees of the buyer. Likewise, the accounts that were sold were no longer Service America accounts. These are the plain and unambiguous meanings of these terms as applied to the facts of this case.
Appellants raise three arguments to defeat the district court's analysis, which parallels our own.
They first argue that Service America voluntarily sold the division, making it impossible for appellants to be employed on the proper date, and this condition of the contract should be excused. Appellants' contention fails. When a condition is stated in unmistakable language, as this condition was, it should not be excused to avoid a forfeiture. Moreover, when foreseeable events arise that render fulfillment of a condition an impossibility, excuse of the condition is not warranted. Thus, appellants could have anticipated events that led to their not being employed on the last day of an accounting period.