Opinion ID: 1347565
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cow-calf agreement.

Text: A written cow-calf agreement provided Olsen 55 percent and Airheart 45 percent of the proceeds from the sale of cattle supplied by Olsen and cared for by Airheart. It stated: This agreement will run for three years or terminate under mutual agreement with six month notification by either party. (emphasis added). Airheart unilaterally notified Olsen of his intent to terminate the agreement. However, Olsen claims he must mutually consent before the agreement may terminate. Olsen brought suit for damages for breach of the cow-calf agreement. Olsen claims Airheart owes him: 1. $8,003.17 for calves sold in Airheart's name, without splitting the proceeds as required under the agreement. 2. $24,428 for wintering the cows from October 1992 to June 1993 and for one month pasture rent. 3. Cost of Labor for fencing or repair of fence, feeding for cows and bulls during winter of 1992-93. 4. Expenses for spring calving, including branding, dehorning, castrating and vaccinating, veterinary expenses and labor. Olsen claims Airheart owes $34,527.17 for these expenses 1 through 4. Olsen claims in the alternative that he lost the benefit of his bargain in the net sum of $50,000. [1] Airheart claims he gave Olsen six months notice in March 1992, terminating the agreement because of his pending divorce. The trial court found that the agreement of the parties specifically provided that [it] could terminate with six months notification by either par[ty.] The trial court also found that Airheart provided the six month notification, as conceded by Olsen on cross examination, and that Airheart did not breach the agreement. The trial court denied Olsen's claims for breach of the cow-calf agreement. 1. Whether the cow-calf agreement required mutual agreement to terminate or only unilateral notification of termination? In Baker v. Wilburn, 456 N.W.2d 304, 306 (S.D.1990), we stated: The effects and terms of a contract are questions of law to be resolved by the court. On appeal, this court can read a contract itself without a presumption in favor of the trial court's determination. The court is to enforce and give effect to the unambiguous language and terms of the contract. Whether the language of a contract is ambiguous is a question of law for the court. A contract is ambiguous when application of rules of interpretation leave a genuine uncertainty as to which of two or more meanings is correct. Id. (citations omitted). In reviewing the terms of this contract, it clearly requires that termination shall be under mutual agreement. Olsen claims he never consented to the termination. The trial court held that the six months' notice was sufficient and did not uphold the under mutual agreement requirement. Here, there is no genuine uncertainty. Baker, 456 N.W.2d at 306. Therefore, the trial court erred as a matter of law by ignoring the mutual agreement requirement. Id. We reverse and remand to the trial court to consider whether the agreement was mutually terminated and whether any damages resulted.