The agreement reached by Marion Hobbs and Dale Young was sufficiently definite and certain as to be an enforceable agreement. Whether the superior court erred in finding that Young and Hobbs reached a meeting of the minds is a question of fact. The superior court ruled that Young and Hobbs had reached a meeting of the minds regarding the pipe issue on or before the day of the global settlement conference. We turn to the question of whether the superior court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. The formation of an express contract requires an offer encompassing its essential terms, an unequivocal acceptance of the terms by the offeree, consideration and an intent to be bound.
Mutual assent is an elementary requirement for a binding contract.
If their expressions convince the court that they intended to be bound without a formal document, their contract is consummated, and the expected formal document will be nothing more than a memorial of that contract. Our review of the entire record in this case leads us to the conclusion that Young and Hobbs never reached a meeting of the minds regarding settlement of their dispute over the pipe. Our conclusion is based in part on the following evidence. Hobbs, however, asserts that Young agreed to four additional or differing terms relating to default, time for performance, Hobbs's pipe installation labor costs, and performance bond or security. The discrepancies between the two versions are clearly substantial.