have explicitly disagreed as to the essential terms thereof. A valid modification of a contract or lease requires “a meeting of the minds of the parties, which must be spelled out, either expressly or impliedly, with sufficient definiteness.” Valcarce v. Bitters, 12 Utah 2d 61, 63, 362 P.2d 427 (1961); see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 33(1) (1981). Modification of such terms as the amount of rent must be agreed upon in a modification of a lease agreement. As Corbin notes, when parties have not agreed on a reasonable price or a method for determining one, “the agreement is too indefinite and uncertain for enforcement.” Joseph M. Perillo et al., Corbin on Contracts § 4.3, at 568 (rev. ed. 1993); see Pingree v. Continental Group of Utah, Inc., 558 P.2d 1317, 1321 (Utah 1976) (<HOLDING>). Barton and Tsem did not agree as to the
holding that under an option requiring renewal at the expiration of the lease but providing no more specific time requirement the lessee had a reasonable time to exercise the option within the term of the lease holding that plaintiff was entitled to compensation for governments taking of option to renew a lease holding that an option to renew at the expiration of the original lease was effectively exercised because the lessees holding over without express notification of renewal was deemed an election to renew the lease holding that under an option requiring renewal at the expiration of the lease the lessee was required to exercise the option on or before the last day of the lease holding option to renew in lease that provided for rental amount to be negotiated but not to exceed specified amount too vague and indefinite to be enforceable