to allow the' unpaid balance to carry forward and accrue interest, the loans satisfy the carry-forward characteristic. The loans also do not provide a fixed amount of debt at the time they are approved. It is true that the loans indicate a maximum borrowable amount, but the borrower can draw on the loans only as necessary to cover any unpaid tuition balance after other sources of funding have been exhausted. The amount disbursed therefore might not reach the stated maximum. When the school issues the loan, it is unknown whether the student will use all, some, or none of the available credit. See Peterson, 584 N.W.2d at 663 (finding no fixed debt when attorney did not agree to provide representation for a specific fee and instead charged an hourly rate); cf. Brozek, 535 N.W.2d at 398 (<HOLDING>). The state maintains that the loans cannot
holding that a construction contract was not an openend credit plan because it had a specific price set out in its original form which was only amended once holding wife who was not the original signor could include property in plan because it was community property holding original tortfeasor had no right to indemnification because it was not an innocent party holding contract for sale of water which did not specify price was unenforceable because price of water was essence of contract holding that discriminatory act occurred when employer amended its plan in response to pda but did not amend service credit for pension purposes