See also Permann, 411 N.W.2d at 119. The trial court made its determination primarily on Sabow v. Hall, 323 N.W.2d 861 (S.D. 1982). In Sabow, substantial negotiations were also conducted.

Ensuing negotiations evidence absence of intent that the purchase agreement constitutes a final and complete agreement. See Sabow v. Hall, 323 N.W.2d 861, 863 (S.D. 1982) (finding no final and complete agreement where negotiations between parties continued after offer and purchase agreement were signed); cf. Rusch v. Kauker, 479 N.W.2d 496, 500 (S.D. 1991) (finding a contract where the purchase agreement contained all necessary terms and conditions and any remaining negotiations involved the contract for deed). [¶ 17] While the Geraets contend the entire time they intended to purchase the land, their conduct showed otherwise.

Conceptually, if there was an agreement (contract), and there were substantial revisions to an agreement, there is no enforceable contract because there is no unconditional acceptance or no contract at all. Sabow v. Hall, 323 N.W.2d 861 (S.D. 1982). Furthermore, Amdahl never signed the memorandum; he did make handwritten notations on the reverse side.