Case Name: STUART HENKEL and Selma Henkel, husband and wife, and Julie Bronniche, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. HEWITT AGENCY, INC., a Montana corp., Defendant and Appellant
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1983-10-20
Citations: 206 Mont. 303
Docket Number: No. 82-17
Parties: STUART HENKEL and Selma Henkel, husband and wife, and Julie Bronniche, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. HEWITT AGENCY, INC., a Montana corp., Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HASWELL and JUSTICES HARRISON, WEBER, MORRISON, SHEEHY and GULBRANDSON concur.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 206
Pages: 303–305

Head Matter:
STUART HENKEL and Selma Henkel, husband and wife, and Julie Bronniche, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. HEWITT AGENCY, INC., a Montana corp., Defendant and Appellant.
No. 82-17.
Submitted July 21, 1983.
Decided Oct. 20, 1983.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1983.
671 P.2d 582.
Herndon, Harper & Munro; James P. Murphy argued, Billings, for defendant and appellant.
Anderson, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull & Jones, James L. Jones argued, Billings, for plaintiffs and respondents.

Opinion:
MR. JUSTICE SHEA
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Hewitt Agency, Inc. appeals an order of the Yellowstone County District Court requiring the agency to sell certain property to the plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of a buy-sell agreement signed by Jean Houle. Jean Houle is the majority stockholder of the corporation, one of its three directors, its president, general manager, and real estate agent. Plaintiffs' interests are primarily represented by Stuart Henkel, a licensed real estate broker with many years experience. The trial court held that Jean Houle, as president, had actual and ostensible authority to bind the corporation. It entered an order of specific performance. Hewitt Agency appeals, claiming Houle's lack of authority to bind the corporation invalidates the contract. We reverse the trial court based on indefiniteness of the original buy-sell agreement.
[lj None of the issues raised on appeal address the issue of specificity and definiteness of the terms of the agreement. We raise the issue under the plain error doctrine, and find it dispositive.
The agreement lists a contract price of $160,000. Interest was initially set at 7 Vi percent per annum. It was modified by the consent of the parties to 9 Vi percent per annum. Interest was to begin July 1, 1978. Monthly payments of $1,000 were to commence August 1, 1978.
At 7 Vi interest, the annual interest totaled $12,000. The monthly payments covered only the interest. The agreement made no provision for payment of the principal. When the parties adjusted the interest rate to 9Vi percent, the annual interest was $15,200. The monthly payments of $1,000 now would not even cover interest. Still no provision was made for payment of the principal.
Only where all the terms of the agreement are definite may a contract be specifically enforced. The terms of this buy-sell agreement are so indefinite as to be without meaning unless rewritten. If the terms must be rewritten, they cannot be specifically enforced.
The judgment granting specific performance is reversed.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HASWELL and JUSTICES HARRISON, WEBER, MORRISON, SHEEHY and GULBRANDSON concur.