11 Appellants Claudia Klawe and Claudia Klawe & Associates, L.L.C. (collectively, Klawe) appeal the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to Appellees Glacier Land Company and Glacier Land Development Company (collectively, Hlacier). The court determined that a marketing agreement between Klawe and Glacier contained an indefinite term of duration and was therefore terminable at will. Klawe also seeks review of two of the trial court's rulings regarding witness testimony. First, Klawe challenges the trial court's exclusion of Claudia Klawe's testimony concerning the assignment of the duties under the exclusive marketing agreement. Second, Klawe asserts it was error for the trial court to allow a rebuttal witness for Glacier to testify when that witness was not listed in pretrial disclosures. Finally, Glacier cross-appeals the trial court's denial of 'a motion for attorney fees. 1 We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. =
BACKGROUND
12 Because this is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we recite "the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn there
*856
from in the light most favorable to the non-moving party." Ryan v. Dan's Food Stores, Inc.,
T3 Under the agreement, Claudia was granted the exclusive right to act as the real-estate agent for the development until all forty of the planned units were sold. In exchange for that right, Claudia agreed to list and promote the project, contribute twenty-five percent of the marketing expenses, and accept a reduced commission on sales. Between the time of the initial oral agreement and the commencement of litigation, the parties memorialized certain aspects of their agreement, including Claudia's right to act as exclusive agent until all units were sold, in several different documents. One of those documents, entitled Marketing Agreement, was executed on August 4, 1999, and stated:
[Claudia] shall be the exclusive real estate agent for the aforementioned properties. Claudia ... shall have the autonomy to implement a successful marketing campaign and to follow through with the listings, sales and closings of all properties.
(Emphases added.) Similarly, another document entitled Listing Agreement & Agency Disclosure form was executed on October 17, 2001, and generally provided that Claudia would be the exclusive listing agent for "40 stand alone residences [at] Monte Luca" until the sell out date. 3
14 In the fall of 2000, Glacier began construction on Monte Luca and started to accept contracts for individual units. Klawe began performing under the agreement by initiating a marketing campaign which included a website, printed materials, and listings for the properties on the Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service (MLS). Klawe also started to secure contracts for the sale of the Monte Luca units.
$5 In April 2001, CHlacier expanded the Monte Luca project by acquiring the Steed Property-an adjoining parcel on Danish Road-that could accommodate an additional two or three units. During the transaction, Claudia acted as Glacier's agent and earned a $14,000 commission. Instead of collecting the commission, however, Klawe credited the $14,000 to Glacier in exchange for a modification of the oral Monte Luca exclusive marketing agreement. The modification provided that the additional two or three units planned on the Steed Property would be included within the terms of the exclusive marketing agreement. Glacier accepted the $14,000 and agreed to the modification, expanding Klawe's exclusive right to act as real estate agent for forty-two 4 planned units in the Monte Luca development-forty from the development as originally planned plus two more units to be built on the Steed Property. On April 23, 2001, the parties memorialized aspects of the oral modification by executing an Addendum to *857 the Real Estate Listing Agreement. And later, on January 7, 2002, the parties executed two additional Listing Agreement & Agency Disclosure forms that generally indicated that they covered "42 stand alone residences [at] Monte Luca," and would be in effect until the "sell out date."
T 6 In June 2002, the relationship between the parties began to deteriorate when David Gough, a Glacier principal, decided to purchase one of the forty-two units in Monte Luca covered by the exclusive marketing agreement. In the transaction, Gough challenged Klawe's right to receive a commission on the sale. When Claudia attempted to discuss the commission with Gough, he became threatening and verbally abusive. After the altercation, Klawe temporarily assigned Claudia's duties under the exclusive marketing agreement to another agent and sent a letter to Glacier stating that the reason for the reassignment was "unethical and improper business conduct" on the part of Glacier. On July 15, 2002, Glacier attempted to terminate its relationship with Klawe, citing poor sales performance as the reason for termination. Shortly after the attempted termination, on August 9, 2002, Glacier brought suit against Klawe seeking a temporary restraining order to compel Klawe to release control over the Monte Luca listings on the MLS. 5 Klawe counterclaimed against Glacier and alleged causes of action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
T7 Glacier sought partial summary judgment with respect to Klawe's breach of contract claim. For purposes of that motion, Glacier stipulated to the fact that the parties had entered into the exclusive marketing agreement and that the agreed duration of the contract was until all forty-two of the Monte Luca units were sold. Glacier then argued that even assuming those facts, Klawe was not entitled to relief as a matter of law because the contract was for an indefinite duration and, therefore, terminable at will by either party. Klawe countered that the duration of the contract was definite because, although no calendar date or temporal term had been adopted, the parties had nonetheless agreed that the contract would terminate upon the happening of a defined event-the sale of all the Monte Luca units. The trial court agreed with CHacier, finding that, as a matter of fundamental contract principles, the parties' contract "lack[ed] definiteness, lack[ed] a period of duration that is certain and as a result can only be argued as, can only be determined as being at-will." Thus, the court granted Glacier partial summary judgment on Klawe's breach of contract claim.
T8 Klawe's unjust enrichment and fraud-based claims proceeded to trial. At trial, Klawe attempted to introduce Claudia's testimony relating to the altercation between herself and Gough that led to the assignment of her duties under the exclusive marketing agreement. The trial court exeluded the testimony under rule 408 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, finding that the evidence was not particularly probative of the issues raised by Klawe's unjust enrichment and fraud claims and had "a tremendous potential for being prejudicial."
1 9 However, Claudia was allowed to testify as to her reliance on the exclusive marketing agreement including the until-sold provision. During cross-examination, (Glacier's counsel asked Claudia if, for the period of time she was at Coldwell, she believed that Coldwell would have accepted a listing agreement specifying a duration of until sold. Claudia answered in the affirmative indicating that she did believe Coldwell would have accepted such a listing. Following Claudia's testimony, Glacier called Dennis Marchant, managing broker for Coldwell, to testify that Coldwell would not have accepted an until-sold listing agreement. However, Marchant had not been designated in CHacier's pretrial disclosures under rule 26 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Klawe moved to exclude Marchant's testimony under rule 37(f) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure on the ground that he had not been previously disclosed. Glacier argued that Marchant's testimony *858 was being offered merely to impeach Claudia's testimony that she believed that Cold-well would have accepted an until-sold listing agreement; and therefore, Glacier was not required to designate Marchant in its pretrial disclosures. Klawe disagreed, contending that because Claudia had only testified as to her belief, she could not be impeached by Marchant's proposed testimony. Therefore, Klawe characterized Marchant as a rebuttal witness, not solely for impeachment, that must be listed in the pretrial disclosures. Ultimately, the trial court denied Klawe's motion to exclude Marchant's testimony. The trial court determined that even if Klawe was correct in characterizing Marchant's testimony as rebuttal testimony, not solely for impeachment purposes, that "it just goes without saying that rebuttal witnesses do not have to be disclosed in initial disclosures."
1 10 Eventually, the case was submitted to the jury which returned its verdict on February 7, 2005. Klawe was awarded $17,000 in damages representing commission on the sale of a single Monte Luca unit that had been placed under contract in the summer of 2002. The jury otherwise denied all other claims by both parties On February 15, 2005, Glacier filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdiet under rule 50 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the award of $17,000 to Klawe was not supported by the record. The trial court entered final judgment on February 23, 2005. The parties objected to the form of the judgment, and the trial court entered an amended final judgment on March 11, 2005. The amended final judgment included the trial court's denial of Glacier's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Neither party moved for attorney fees prior to the entry of the final judgment or the amended final judgment and no attorney fees were awarded in either judgment. Klawe filed a notice of appeal on March 16, 2005. On March 830, 2005, two weeks after Klawe's notice of appeal, Glacier filed a motion seeking an award of attorney fees. The trial court initially granted the motion but later, after complete briefing, reversed itself, ultimately denying Glacier an award of attorney fees upon finding that the motion had been untimely filed because it was made after the entry of final judgment and Klawe's notice of appeal. Both Klawe and Glacier appealed.
ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
111 First, Klawe challenges the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment with respect to its claim for breach of the exclusive marketing agreement. "Summary judgment must be supported by evidence, admissions, and inferences which when viewed in the light most favorable to the losing side establish that 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Rose v. Allied Dev. Co.,
112 Second, Klawe seeks review of the trial court's exclusion of Claudia's testimony regarding the altercation between herself and Gough on the ground that the evidence was unduly prejudicial under rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. Generally, a trial court is given broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence under rule 408. See State v. Pena,
*859
1183 Third, Klawe asserts that the trial court committed error when it allowed Marchant to testify as to whether Coldwell would have accepted an until-sold listing agreement because Marchant was a rebuttal witness, not solely for impeachment, and was therefore required to be listed in Glacier's pretrial disclosures. We review a trial court's decision to deny a motion for discovery sanctions under a bifurcated standard. See Stevenett v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
114 Finally, Glacier cross-appeals the trial court's denial of attorney fees for failure to timely file. "A trial court's conclusion that a request for attorney fees is waived if not made at trial is a legal conclusion. We review a trial court's conclusions of law for correctness, granting no deference to the trial judge's legal determinations." Meadowbrook, L.L.C. v. Flower,
ANALYSIS
I. Summary Judgment
{15 Klawe asserts that the trial court erred when it granted Glacier's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed Klawe's contract claims arising out of the exclusive marketing agreement. Klawe argues that it was erroneous for the trial court to summarily enter judgment against it on its breach of contract claim on the ground that the agreement was terminable at will by either party. 7 We agree.
*860 A. Utah's At-Will Presumption
116 "Utah's employment law presumes that all employment relationships entered into for an indefinite period of time are at-will, where the employer or the employee may terminate the employment for any reason (or no reason) except where prohibited by law." Hansen v. America Online, Inc.,
T17 Thus, Glacier argues that because the exclusive marketing agreement provides that the duration is until all forty-two of the Monte Luea units are sold, without providing a calendar date for. expiration or a measurement of time for performance, it was terminable at the will of either party. Klawe has implicitly accepted Glacier's framing of the at-will rule and has primarily argued for a broader interpretation of definite duration that would include the "until sold" term of the exclusive marketing agreement, thus, placing it outside the at-will rule. We recognize that some other states have adopted an at-will rule similar to the interpretation proposed by Glacier.
8
See, eg., Schultz v. Hill, 2002-0835, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/14/08),
18 Under Utah law, an employment relationship entered into for an indefinite time creates a rebuttable presumption that the employment may be terminated at the will of either the employee or the employer. See Rackley,
*861 (1) there is an implied or express agreement that the employment may be terminated only for cause or upon satisfaction of another agreed-upon condition; (2) a statute or regulation restricts the right of an employer to terminate an employee under certain conditions; or (8) the termination of employment constitutes a violation of a clear and substantial policy.
Rackley,
119 We now apply this rebuttable presumption to the facts of the present case viewed in a light most favorable to Klawe. First, we recognize that the exclusive marketing agreement does not specify a duration in the form of expiration on a specific calendar date, nor does it specify expiration after the passage of a defined period of time or upon an event certain to happen. Therefore, assuming, without deciding, that Glacier is correct in characterizing this as a term of indefinite duration, we begin with the presumption that the agreement was terminable at-will. See id. ("(Under Utah law we initially presume it is of indefinite duration but terminable at will."). This, however, does not end the inquiry. Next, we must "consider whether any of the exceptions to the at-will rule applies." Id. Here, the parties expressly agreed
9
that the employment relationship would terminate "upon [the] satisfaction of [an] agreed-upon condition." Rackley,
B. Meeting of the Minds
120 Implicit in this analysis is an inquiry into whether the agreed-upon condition is definite enough to allow the court to enforce the terms of the condition. This question is distinct from the issue of whether the duration is definite and instead involves principles of contract construction asking whether the parties had a meeting of the minds on the agreed-upon condition."
10
See Nielsen v. Gold's Gym,
$21 Glacier stipulated for the purposes of summary judgment that the parties had agreed to the until-sold term. Nonetheless, Glacier argues that the agreed-upon condition is unenforceable, as a matter
*862
of law, because the terms of the condition are too indefinite to establish that the parties had a meeting of the minds. First, Glacier contends that it would not have been reasonable for it to have entered into a contract that granted Klawe a perpetual right to sell all the units in Monte Luca. And second, Glacier submits that the agreed-upon condition was indefinite and unenforceable because it would be impossible to determine when the last of the forty-two Monte Luca units would be sold.
11
Nonetheless, when we view all the facts and inferences in a light most favorable to Klawe, as we must, it can be inferred that, at the time of contracting, the parties reached an express agreement under which Klawe had the right to act as the exclusive real estate agent until all forty-two Monte Luca units were sold.
12
In Utah, "Itlhe law enables parties to freely contract, establishing terms and allocating risks between them. The law even permits parties to enter into unreasonable contracts or contracts leading to a hardship on one party." Ryan,
1 22 Like an agreed-upon just-cause condition, we cannot say that the terms of the until-sold condition were too indefinite to support a meeting of the minds merely because the parties could not predict when the last of the forty-two units would sell. Similarly, we cannot hold that the agreed-upon condition is too indefinite merely because enforcement of the express terms would result in a hardship on Glacier. Under the facts and cireumstances present at the time of the agreement, Monte Luca had a defined development plan known to both parties that anticipated forty units. The parties were free to agree that the exclusive agency would terminate upon the sale of all forty of those units. Later, when the parties anticipated the addition of two or three units, they could amend any existing agreement to include those units within the exclusive agency. If the agreement was made, the condition was "set forth with sufficient definiteness that it clould] be performed." Ferris v. Jennings,
*863 II. Evidentiary Issues
A. Altercation Between Claudia and Gough
123 Klawe also asks this court to review the trial court's exclusion, under rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, of Claudia's testimony regarding the altercation she had with Gough when he contested Klawe's right to receive a commission on the unit Gough purchased in Monte Luca. Klawe does not, however, assert that exclusion of the evidence was in error. Klawe concedes that testimony regarding the altercation was properly excluded as it pertained to the unjust enrichment and fraud claims before the jury. Instead, Klawe asks this court to rule that Claudia must be permitted to testify on the subject of her altercation with Gough during the trial after remand of Klawe's breach of contract claim. Klawe reasons that Glacier is likely to assert that Klawe was the first to breach the exclusive marketing agreement when it assigned Claudia's duties to another agent. Klawe asserts that testimony regarding the altercation between Claudia and Gough will be highly probative of the reasons underlying the assignment. Klawe contends that, when the evidence is viewed in the context of the breach of contract claim instead of the unjust enrichment claim, the testimony regarding the altercation cannot be substantially outweighed by the prejudicial value of the evidence as a matter of law. Therefore, Klawe urges this court to remove the evidentiary decision-making from the trial court and to direct that Claudia be allowed to testify on the subject of the altercation on remand. This we will not do.
$24 "'[A] trial court has broad discretion to determine whether proffered evidence is relevant'" under rule 401 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. State v. Hobbs,
125 Although we acknowledge the likely relevance of Gough's alleged threatening behavior to the breach of contract claim and Glacier's relevant defenses, we nonetheless stop short of usurping the trial court's primary responsibility to make the rule 408 determination on remand. See Bullock v. Ungricht,
B. Pretrial Discloswes
126 Klawe argues that the trial court erred when it announced that "it just goes without saying that rebuttal witnesses do not have to be disclosed in initial disclosures," and allowed Marchant to testify that Cold-well would not have accepted an until-sold listing. . Klawe argues that because Mar-chant was not disclosed as a witness in Glacier's pretrial disclosures as required by rule 26(a)(4) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Marchant should have been barred from testifying under rule 37(F). See Utah R. Civ. P. 26(a)(d), 87(f). Glacier responds that Mar-chant's testimony was offered solely for the purpose of impeaching Claudia and that sane-tions are inapplicable because Marchant's testimony was properly allowed under the "solely for impeachment" exception to the disclosure requirements. See id. 26(a)(4). Klawe claims that it would have been impossible to "impeach" Claudia's testimony that she believed that Coldwell would have accepted an until-sold listing 14 with testimony from Marchant that he believed otherwise. Additionally, Klawe maintains that Marchant's testimony addressed an area of substantive import to the remaining unjust enrichment and fraud claims because the testimony suggested that Klawe's reliance on the until-sold agreement was not reasonable.
127 Rule 26 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure requires litigants to make certain pretrial disclosures. See Utah R. Civ. P. 26(a)(4). Specifically, rule 26 mandates that parties provide each other with "the name{,] . address[,] and telephone number of each witness, separately identifying witnesses the party expects to present and witnesses the party may call if the need arises." Id. 26(a)(4)(A). Additionally, parties are charged with a duty to supplement pretrial disclosures "if the party learns that in some material respect the information disclosed is incomplete or incorrect and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties." 15 Id. 26(e)(1). However, the rule is not absolute. A party need not identify a witness in its pretrial disclosures if the witness is offered "solely for impeachment." Id. 26(a)(4). Glacier argues that it had no duty to disclose Marchant as a witness because Marchant's testimony was used solely for the purpose of impeaching Claudia.
The scope of the "solely for impeachment" exception to rule 26 disclosures under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure is a question of first impression for Utah courts. We begin by noting that there is a strong policy underlying the modern rules of civil procedure that the "instruments of discovery ... together with pretrial procedures make a trial less a game of blindman's bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent." United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
(29 Rule 26(a)(4) states: "A party shall provide to other parties the following information regarding the evidence that it may present at trial other than solely for impeachment." Utah R. Civ. P. 26(a)(4) (emphasis added). Impeachment of a witness is defined as the act of "discredit{ing] the veracity of a witness." Black's Law Dictionary 768 (8th ed.1999) (parentheses omitted). Similarly, "impeachment evidence" is defined as "[elvidence used to undermine a witness's credibility." Id. at 597. Thus, by the rule's plain meaning, witnesses need not be disclosed if the sole purpose of their testimony *865 is to call into question the "veracity" or "credibility" of another witness.
1 30 The text of rule 26(a)(8) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing pretrial disclosures is nearly identical to that of rule 26(a)(4) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Compare Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)8), with Utah R. Civ. P. 26(a)(4). Because "(interpretations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are persuasive where the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure are 'substantially similar to the federal rules," Tucker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
181 Federal cireuit courts of appeal have split over the meaning of rule 26's solely for impeachment exception. Some circuits have applied a narrow interpretation of the phrase solely for impeachment, holding that evidence having both an impeachment purpose and a substantive purpose "is not offered 'solely for impeachment,' [and] it is not covered by the exception to the [rJule 26 discovery requirements." Klonoski v. Mahlab,
182 Utah has not yet decided whether the "solely for impeachment" language of rule 26 means that evidence must have, as its only purpose, the ability to shed light on a witness's veracity. 16 For the pur *866 poses of this case, that issue need not be decided. Even if we were to assume that Utah will adopt the more narrow interpretation of the "solely for impeachment" exception and that Marchant's testimony was substantively relevant rather than solely for the purpose of discrediting Claudia's veracity, we are not persuaded that the trial court committed prejudicial error.
133 Klawe argues that it was reversible error for the trial court to deny its motion to exclude Marchant's testimony as a sanction under rule 37(F). Again, assuming, without deciding, that the admission of Marchant's testimony was improper, Klawe has failed to demonstrate that the admission of the evidence was "harmful." State v. Lindgren,
134 We note that "[the determination of whether there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome is based upon a review of the record." Id. at 1274. "This review requires the appellate court to determine from the record what evidence would have been before the jury absent the trial court's error." Id. "When evidence is erroneously admitted, it is possible for a reviewing court to excise the offending evidence and evaluate the remaining uncontested evidence so as to determine whether the properly admitted evidence is such that the prevailing party would have prevailed anyway." Berrett v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co.,
185 Klawe also argues that in the event its breach of contract claim is remanded, this court should direct the trial court to exclude Marchant's testimony on any subsequent trial of that issue. Again, we refuse to invade the role of the trial court to ' make evidentiary rulings on remand. "Trial courts have broad discretion in determining discovery sanctions 'because trial courts must deal first hand with the parties and the discovery process.'" Hales v. Oldroyd,
III. Attorney Fees
T36 Finally, Glacier appeals the trial court's ruling that Glacier waived its right to recover attorney fees by failure to timely file. In Meadowbrook, L.L.C. v. Flower,
137 Klawe also seeks attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure 83 and 40. See Utah R.App. P. 33, 40. We deny the request.
CONCLUSION
£38 Under Utah law, employment contracts of indefinite duration are subject to an at-will presumption that can be rebutted by, among other things, evidence of an implied or express agreement that the employment could only be terminated upon satisfaction of an agreed-upon condition. When all facts and inferences are viewed in a light most favorable to Klawe, summary judgment was improperly granted because those facts could support a finding that the parties reached an express agreement that the exclusive listing agreement would terminate upon the happening of an agreed-upon condition-the sale of all the units in the Monte Luca development. Next, even if we assume that Mar-chant's testimony did not fall within the "solely for impeachment" exception to the pretrial disclosure requirements of rule 26 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, we hold that the trial court did not commit reversible error because Klawe failed to demonstrate harm. Additionally, we decline Klawe's invitation to require the trial court to allow Claudia's testimony regarding her altercation with Gough or to exelude Marchant's testimony on remand. Finally, we affirm the trial court's determination that Glacier waived its right to attorney fees as the prevailing party and deny Klawe's motion for attorney fees incurred in this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
189 WE CONCUR: RUSSELL W. BENCH, Presiding Judge and PAMELA T. GREENWOOD, Associate Presiding Judge.
Notes
. Glacier also sought review of a number of the trial court's other rulings. However, that portion of the appeal was not timely filed and was dismissed as beyond the jurisdiction of this court. See Glacier Land Co. v. Claudia Klawe & Assocs.,
. Claudia Klawe later terminated her affiliation with Coldwell and created Claudia Klawe & Associates Inc. to act as her principal broker.
. Specifically the Listing Agreement & Agency Disclosure form had been filled out to read:
The Seller hereby grants the Company, including Claudia Klawe ... as the authorized agent for the Company, for the period of until sold months starting at the execution of this listing agreement, and ending at 5:00 P.M. on the sell day-of out date 199- ... the Exclusive Right to Sell, Lease, or Exchange certain real property owned by the Seller, described as: 40 stand alone residences [at] Monte Luca .... Portions of the text that are underscored represent blanks in the form that were filled in by hand with the indicated language. Text represented with a strike-through was pre-printed on the form and crossed out by hand.
. Although the Steed Property could accommodate two or three additional units, for convenience we refer to the total number of units within Monte Luca as forty-two.
. Glacier also initiated claims including, but not limited to, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and intentional interference with economic relations. However, because these claims are not within the subject matter of this appeal, they will not be discussed further.
. Klawe asserts that because Marchant's testimony was not offered solely for impeachment, the exclusion of Marchant's testimony was mandatory under rule 37(f) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Klawe contends, the trial court lacked discretion to award or deny sanctions. We disagree. Klawe relies on the language of rule 37(F) which provides that if a party fails to disclose a witness, as required by rule 26(a), "that party shall not be permitted to use the witness." Utah R. Civ. P. 37(f) {emphasis added). However, Klawe removes rule 378) from its context. Rule 37(F) states:
If a party fails to disclose a witness, ... that party shall not be permitted to use the witness, ... unless the failure to disclose is harmless or the party shows good cause for the failure to disclose. In addition to or in lieu of this sanction, the court may order any other sanction, including payment of reasonable costs and attorney fees, any order permitted under subpart (b)(2)(A), (B), or (C) and informing the jury of the failure to disclose.
Utah R. Civ. P. 37(Q). Thus, although rule 37(F) begins with the mandatory language cited by Klawe-that if a party fails to disclose a witness that party shall not be permitted to use the wituess-the remainder of the rule demonstrates that the trial court retains broad discretion in choosing an appropriate sanction for failure to disclose a witness. See id. For example, the trial court may decline sanctions altogether upon a finding that the failure to disclose is harmless or that the party had good cause for failure to disclose. See id. Additionally, it is within the trial court's discretion to impose alternative sanctions under rule 37(b)(2)(A), (B), or (C), or to limit sanctions to informing the jury as to the party's failure to disclose. See id. Therefore, we review a trial court's award or denial of sanctions under rule 37(f), like decisions under other subsections of rule 37, for an abuse of discretion. See Harris v. IES Assocs., Inc.,
. Exclusive listing agreements for the sale, lease, or exchange of real property are properly treated as contracts for employment and are subject to Utah's at-will presumption. See Gump & Ayers Real Estate, Inc. v. Domcoy Investors V, 733 P.2d *860 128, 130 (Utah 1987) (applying Utah's at-will presumption to exclusive listing agreement).
. Some states have adopted an at-will rule that provides that an employment contract is at-will unless the parties agree to a definite term of duration; however, many of those states have tempered the harshness of such a rule by adopting a broad definition of definite duration like that proposed by Klawe. See, eg., Schult v. Hill, 2002-0835, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/14/03),
. Again, we state the facts as stipulated and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Klawe for purposes of reviewing the trial court's grant of Glacier's summary judgment motion.
. Fundamental principles of contract construction still play a role in the analysis because "[a] wrongful termination case based on a violation of an express or implied term of the employment agreement rests on a duty that an employer voluntarily undertakes as a consequence of the employment agreement itself, whether express or implied." Fox v. MCI Commc'ns Corp.,
. Glacier presses the argument that because it is a corporate entity existing into perpetuity and because it is impossible to determine if or when it will ever complete the Monte Luca development, the contract with Klawe also extends into perpetuity limited by nothing but the until-sold provision. Glacier overstates this proposition. As a general rule, employment contracts for personal services include an implied condition that the employment relationship terminates upon the death of the employee, thus, the death of Claudia is an additional condition that would also terminate the contract. See 14 Corbin on Contracts § 75.2, p. 128 (rev. ed. 2001) (''The death of an employee who has contracted to render personal service also discharges the employer from further duly, except the duty to compensate for services already received."); see also Charles V. Webster Real Estate v. Rickard,
. By holding that the facts, when viewed in a light most favorable to Klawe, could support a determination that a meeting of the minds occurred and that, therefore, the exclusive marketing agreement could only be terminated upon the sale of the last unit, we do not intend to resolve any contractual issues that may arise upon the actual resolution of the disputed facts. Rather, we hold only that Klawe is entitled to submit its interpretation to the trier of fact.
. This holding is very narrow and only addresses whether Klawe's breach of contract claim was properly disposed of on summary judgment on the ground that it was an at-will contract as a matter of law. Our decision today is limited to a review of whether, under Utah's at-will presump
*863
tion, the "evidence, admissions, and inferences . when viewed in the light most favorable to [Klawe] establish that 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party » is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' Rose v. Allied Dev. Co.,
. During cross-examination, Glacier's counsel elicited testimony from Claudia as follows: "Glacier Counsel: 'Do you believe Coldwell Banker would have accepted an until-sold listing agreement as of about August of 1999? Yes or no.'" (Emphasis added.) "Claudia Klawe: 'Yes.'"
. There is no dispute that Glacier was aware, sometime prior to trial, that Marchant was prepared to testify that he believed Coldwell would not accept until-sold listing agreements.
. The Utah Supreme Court has previously discussed when evidence is used "solely for impeachment purposes" within the context of Utah's Post-Conviction Remedies Act (the Act), Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-35a-101 to -110 (2002 & Supp.2006). See Wickham v. Galetka,
. Glacier argues that ProMax Development Corp. v. Raile,