Opinion ID: 1281009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unambiguous Contract Provision.

Text: Baldwin's contract expressly provided for bonus payments based on the number of recruited students staying in school. The trial court found the words bonus and commission could be used interchangeably. This provision reads: (b) Bonus Plan. Employee will receive bonuses in accordance with the attached Compensation Plan. Bonuses will be paid upon the student's completion of his/her first four weeks of classes. Employee will receive no bonus payments after termination of this agreement, regardless of which party terminates the agreement. (Emphasis added.) Baldwin claims she earned $1,600 in commissions prior to terminating her employment with College. Normally, these commissions would have been paid once the recruited students finished four weeks of classes. However, College argues that since Baldwin left her employment prior to her recruits completing the four-week period the language of the contract prevents Baldwin's bonus from vesting. We agree with College that the language of the bonus provision unequivocally reads that no bonus payments will be made after termination. The language is unambiguous. In Enchanted World Doll Museum v. Buskohl, 398 N.W.2d 149 (S.D.1986), this court held [i]t is a fundamental rule of contract construction that the entire contract, and each and all of its parts and provisions must be given meaning if that can be consistently and reasonably done. Id. at 152 (citing Dail v. Vodicka, 89 S.D. 600, 604, 237 N.W.2d 7, 9 (1975)). In addition, Baldwin testified that her duties as a recruiter continued after the student signed an application until he or she completed the fourth week of class. During that time, Baldwin's job was to do everything possible to help the student adjust and stay in school. Once the student finished the fourth week, the recruiter would then be entitled to the commission. According to the contract, Baldwin's rights to her bonus did not vest because she terminated her employment prior to the end of the four-week period. The trial court found this provision unconscionable as punishment against an employee who wants to terminate employment with College. We do not agree. In Rozeboom v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 358 N.W.2d 241, 244 (S.D.1984), this court defined unconscionable contracts to be: One-sided agreements whereby one party is left without a remedy for another party's breach[.] Given the record, we do not find the bonus provision one-sided. Baldwin had the opportunity to review the contract prior to signing and did so. Furthermore, it was Baldwin, not College, who terminated the agreement. We also disagree with the trial court's characterization of the contract as an adhesion contract. The contract was not presented in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion. Id. at 242; see also Green v. Clinic Masters, Inc., 272 N.W.2d 813, 815-16 (S.D.1978). Upon reviewing the contract with special scrutiny, as required of documents in which one party did not participate in drafting, the language of the document and the circumstances surrounding this agreement do not constitute an adhesion contract. Rozeboom, 358 N.W.2d at 244-45.