Opinion ID: 2575815
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Paragraph 13 Is Sufficiently Definite To Be Enforced.

Text: James contends that paragraph 13 of the settlement agreement is too indefinite to be enforced. He argues: The parties never agreed on how to administer the educational fund. There was no definition of what educational purposes the fund is to be used for. There was no mechanism for agreement on the use of funds.... There is no way for the court to determine how the educational fund of paragraph 13 is to be administered, and it therefore cannot be enforced. James is certainly correct that paragraph 13 does not specify how the educational fund is to be administered or what educational purpose it is designed to serve. But this fact does not render the agreement too indefinite for enforcement. We have previously held that while [v]agueness of expression, indefiniteness and uncertainty as to any of the essential terms of an agreement may prevent the creation of an enforceable contract[,]... courts should give legal effect to the intentions of the parties where necessary to reach a fair and just result. [7] Moreover, as Professor Corbin has explained, [t]he fact that the parties have left some matters to be determined in the future should not prevent enforcement, if some method of determination independent of a party's mere `wish, will, and desire' exists. [8] The essential terms of the bargain  Ann forswears her right to the portion of James's retirement buyout (either as child support or as part of her share of the marital estate, or both) in exchange for the creation of educational accounts with those funds  seem clear. And the absence of agreed-upon procedures for administering and distributing the educational funds should not be fatal to this bargain. It seems reasonable to conclude that the parties would have deferred decisions regarding distribution until the children's educational needs were more apparent (in 1992, the Dunlaps' children celebrated their seventh and second birthdays). Moreover, James's conduct evinces such an understanding: Upon opening the educational accounts in 1994, he stated that he would act as custodian and that the disbursement would be left to the discretion of the children.