Opinion ID: 901347
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Essential Terms of a Contract

Text: [¶ 29.] Behrens point out that in order for a valid contract to exist there must be mutual consent to the same terms. In other words, the requisite parties must agree upon the same thing in the same sense. See SDCL 53-3-3. Behrens argue that the mortuary building was the crown jewel of the acquisition and that there was no term agreeing to the purchase price for that asset in the Initial Agreement. Absent a purchase price for this asset, Behrens argue that the parties did not come to an agreement on this essential term, and therefore, no binding contract existed. [¶ 30.] Wedmore responds that [t]he price allocated to the mortuary building had no bearing on the agreed upon purchase price of the entire business the object of the contract. Wedmore also points out that the parties all agreed that there was never any question [that] the building was available for sale as indicated in the Initial Agreement. We agree with Wedmore. [¶ 31.] In doing so, we point out that although the allocation of the purchase price to the mortuary building was not initially finalized, the total purchase price for all assets had been agreed to. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence to find that the Initial Agreement contained parties capable of contracting [6] and their mutual consent [7] to the same terms. See SDCL 53-1-2, 53-3-3. The contract did not fail as a matter of law for uncertainty as to parties or consent to the purchase price of the assets.