Court Opinion

ID: 9689642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:41:57.334315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:51.054004
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Justice
(concurring specially).
The relationship between plaintiff and Dakota Industries, Inc., was governed by a written agreement entered into on February 21, 1975. On May 2, 1975, the same parties made a second formal contract. As the majority opinion notes, the second agreement specifies the compensation to be paid if either party terminates the agreement and continues to produce and market the product.
The parties had a right to compromise and contract their rights and interests in the venture. There is no claim that the agreements were void or voidable and plaintiff may very well have enforceable claims based upon these express contracts.
However, having reduced their business arrangement to formal agreements fixing *426the rights of each, those rights and duties are precisely what they say they are. The majority opinion indicates that any suit upon such a transaction must be based on the contract alone, particularly when the condition which occurred is foreseen in the contract with a remedy provided. If that is a correct statement of the rule in this state, and I agree it is, then any remedies otherwise available, either in tort or implied contract, are moot issues.