28, 1990). Given these facts, the trial court erred in concluding the doctrine of election of remedies barred Christensen’s declaratory judgment action on the fee-sharing contract. II. Minnesota’s public policy favors freedom in the negotiation of contracts. Rossman v. 740 River Drive, 308 Minn. 134, 136, 241 N.W.2d 91, 92 (1976); see Tibbetts v. Crossroads, Inc., 411 N.W.2d 535, 538 (Minn.App.1987) (recognizing freedom of contract as important societal tenet). Public policy requires that freedom of contract remain inviolate except when a particular contract violates a principle of even greater importance to the general public. Rossman, 308 Minn. at 136, 241 N.W.2d at 92; see Independent Sch. Dist. No. 877 v. Loberg Plumbing & Heating Co., 266 Minn. 426, 434, 123 N.W.2d 793, 799 (1963) (<HOLDING>); see, e.g., Malmin v. Minnesota Mut. Fire &
recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding courts must enforce declared purpose of contract if within scope of lawful contractual objectives but recognizing contract violating law or public policy is void recognizing an agreement whose sole purpose is to prevent competition per se is void as a matter of public policy holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms