Opinion ID: 2590584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: 15% of Issued Equity

Text: Maroun's compensation package included 15% of Wyreless' issued equity but the letter outlining the compensation package also stated the equity will need to be tied to agreeable milestones (e.g., acquisition of Matricus, organization of management team, etc.). Where a contract is clear and unambiguous, the determination and legal effect of a contractual provision is a question of law to be decided by the court. Terteling v. Payne, 131 Idaho 389, 391, 957 P.2d 1387, 1389 (1998) (citing Suchan v. Suchan, 106 Idaho 654, 660, 682 P.2d 607, 613 (1984)). Interpretation of an ambiguous document presents a question of fact. DeLancey v. DeLancey, 110 Idaho 63, 65, 714 P.2d 32, 34 (1986). The determination of whether a document is ambiguous is itself a question of law, which we resolve by examining the document's relevant provisions to determine whether the contract is reasonably subject to conflicting interpretations. Terteling, 131 Idaho at 392, 957 P.2d at 1390 (citations omitted). Although it may be unclear what the agreeable milestones would be, the agreement in this case is not ambiguous as to when payments for equity would be considered. The provision requiring the equity be tied to agreeable milestones is merely an agreement to agree in the future on a condition precedent to any obligation to pay. Generally, an agreement to agree is unenforceable, as its terms are so indefinite that it fails to show a mutual intent to create an enforceable obligation.... No enforceable contract comes into being when parties leave a material term for future negotiations, creating a mere agreement to agree. 17A AM. JUR.2D Contracts § 181 (2004). A condition precedent is an event not certain to occur, but which must occur, before performance under a contract becomes due. Steiner v. Ziegler-Tamura Ltd., 138 Idaho 238, 242, 61 P.3d 595, 599 (2002) (citing World Wide Lease, Inc. v. Woodworth, 111 Idaho 880, 887, 728 P.2d 769, 776 (Ct.App.1986)). The provision dealing with entitlement to 15% of issued equity is unenforceable because it is merely an agreement to agree on something which may never occur. The district court's grant of summary judgment with respect to the claim of issued equity is affirmed.