Opinion ID: 2537326
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Field Work

Text: [¶ 13] Regarding the issues raised by Wagner, the district court was correct in summarily disposing of Wagner's unjust enrichment and promissory estoppel claims. Such claims are precluded by the existence of an enforceable contract. Sowerwine v. Keith, 997 P.2d 1018, 1021 (Wyo. 2000). Our concern, therefore, is with the language of the contract. [¶ 14] The construction of contractual language, being a matter of law, is reviewed de novo. According to our established standards for interpretation of contracts, the words used in the contract are afforded the plain meaning that a reasonable person would give to them. Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of America, 864 P.2d 1018, 1023 (Wyo. 1993). When the provisions in the contract are clear and unambiguous, the court looks only to the four corners of the document in arriving at the intent of the parties. Union Pacific Resources Co. [ v. Texaco, Inc. ], 882 P.2d [212,] 220 [(Wyo. 1994)]; Prudential Preferred Properties [ v. J and J Ventures, Inc. ], 859 P.2d [1267,] 1271 [(Wyo. 1993)]. In the absence of any ambiguity, the contract will be enforced according to its terms because no construction is appropriate. Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Republic Ins. Co., 929 P.2d 535, 539 (Wyo. 1996); Prudential Preferred Properties, 859 P.2d at 1271. Amoco Production Co. v. EM Nominee Partnership Co., 2 P.3d 534, 540 (Wyo. 2000); see also Roney v. B.B.C. Corp., 2004 WY 113, ¶ 10, 98 P.3d 196, 200 (Wyo. 2004). [¶ 15] The contractual language at issue is: Seller has done field preparation for the 2007 crop year. Compensation to seller for said work shall be settled between buyer and seller outside of this Contract. Wagner argues this language binds the Reuters to pay for the field preparation work he performed. The Reuters, on the other hand, argue the language does not bind them to pay anything. Both parties are correct. By this contractual language, the Reuters obligated themselves to pay for field work completed. If no field work was done, the Reuters would owe Wagner nothing. [¶ 16] Confusion seems to be caused by the fact that the actual amount due was to be settled outside the contract. This does not, however, render the provision meaningless within the context of the contract. Far from being a fruitless provision, this provision mandates, as part of the consideration for the sale of the farm, that the parties settle on a price for completed field work. This is, in essence, an agreement to engage in negotiations on the issue of field work. We find this agreement to engage in negotiations an integral part of the contract and fully enforceable. [¶ 17] That this provision in the contract was breached is irrefutable. The facts reveal that the Reuters never engaged in any negotiations with Wagner as required by the contract. The potential result of such negotiations  the amount due and owing  is irrelevant to whether this contract provision has been violated. The district court thus erred in its determination that the contract was not breached. Still pending is the issue of damages. Genuine issues of material fact clearly exist as to what a reasonable amount of monetary compensation, if any, may be appropriate in this case.