Opinion ID: 874296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Dismissing the Complaint?

Text: The district court held that the Design/Build Agreement was an express contract; that Landowner did not breach the contract because it did not obligate Landowner to do anything; and that the express contract barred Builder's equitable claims. The district court erred in holding that the Design/Build Agreement was a contract. During oral argument on appeal, both parties admitted that the Design/Build Agreement was not a binding contract because it was merely an agreement to agree. It is essential to an enforceable contract that it be sufficiently definite and certain in its terms and requirements so that it can be determined what acts are to be performed and when performance is complete. Dale's Service Co., Inc. v. Jones, 96 Idaho 662, 664, 534 P.2d 1102, 1104 (1975). Under the Design/Build Agreement, the parties left for future agreement both the plans and specifications describing the scope of the work to be done and the contract price, which were essential, interrelated terms. No enforceable contract comes into being when parties leave a material term for future negotiations, creating a mere agreement to agree. Maroun v. Wyreless Systems, Inc., 141 Idaho 604, 614, 114 P.3d 974, 984 (2005) (quoting from 17A Am.Jur.2d Contracts § 181 (2004)). Therefore, we vacate the judgment, the award of costs and attorney fees, and the order granting summary judgment.