parties resolve the matter. Indeed, the stipulation called for resolution “without court intervention.” Thus, Shirley Hageness is not prevented from maintaining an action for breach of contract. Ill [¶ 16] Although Shirley Hageness is entitled to bring a separate action for breach of contract, she is not entitled to prevail. The “contract” embodied in this stipulation is essentially an unenforceable agreement to agree. See Clooten v. Clooten, 520 N.W.2d 843, 848-49 (N.D.1994) (noting statement by former spouse to “work something out” was unenforceable agreement to agree); Super Hooper, Inc. v. Dietrich & Sons, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 152, 155-56 (N.D.1984) (reasoning agreements to agree are “rarely enforceable”). But see Lire, Inc. v. Bob’s Pizza Inn Rest, Inc., 541 N.W.2d 432, 434 (N.D.1995) (<HOLDING>); Coldwell Banker v. Meide & Son, Inc., 422
recognizing an agreement to agree is enforceable if its terms are reasonably definite and certain holding that if the contract can be given a definite and certain meaning or interpretation the contract is not ambiguous and will be construed by the court as a matter of law holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract holding that a settlement agreement in which the parties failed to agree upon the terms of a release was unenforceable holding that in order for a contract to be enforced it is necessary that all the essential terms of the contract must first be established by competent evidence and shown to be definite certain clear and unambiguous