Opinion ID: 1262742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: validity of s.a. # 11

Text: UDOT first claims that an issue of fact exists with regard to whether S.A. # 11 is a valid and binding contract. It is undisputed that all of the necessary UDOT signatures were affixed to S.A. # 11 and that the document itself was never physically delivered to Young. It is also undisputed that S.A. # 11 states: Signing this agreement settles any and all claims on Contract Item No. 9, Mechanically Placed Rip Rap. In Aspen Acres Association v. Seven Associates, Inc., [3] a contract for transfer of water rights and a water system was in dispute. In reversing the trial court's determination that the contract was binding, we held: [T]he mere affixing of the signatures to the document did not conclusively prove that there was a binding contract. In addition, there must be a delivery, not in the traditional sense of a manual transfer, but in the sense that it was the intent of the parties to have the document become legally operative at some definite point in time, however such intent might be indicated. [4] Despite the fact that S.A. # 11 was never physically delivered to Young, UDOT plainly evidenced its intent by affixing all of the necessary signatures, which the document itself states is an act indicating an intent to be bound. UDOT drafted S.A. # 11 and must be bound by the unambiguous terms and conditions within the four corners of the document. [5] We therefore affirm the trial court's determination that S.A. # 11 was a valid and binding contract.