While our review is de novo, we have the benefit of the motion judge's thorough and thoughtful decision. After independently considering the record and the applicable law, we reach the same conclusion. Here the MOU contained all of the essential terms of a contract. The language of the MOU, that the parties "have agreed to settle" the case and that Laface "will pay" the amount specified in the MOU in accordance with a payment plan, was not conditional or contingent and reflected the parties' intent to be bound. See Dominick v. Dominick, 18 Mass. App. Ct. 85, 86-89 (1984) (once parties indicated to judge that they had entered into settlement agreement with express intention of reducing agreement to writing, agreement became binding even in absence of formal signed agreement). Laface's averments in opposition to the motion for summary judgment that he did not believe the MOU obligated him to do anything and that he believed he would only be obligated once he signed the final settlement agreement is inconsistent with the clear language of the MOU. "[T]he clarity of the [MOU] prevents the inference (and any genuine issue of material fact) that such a term was open or unresolved." Targus Group Int'l Inc., 76 Mass. App. Ct. at 434 n.11. See Nortek, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 65 Mass. App. Ct. 764, 773 (2006) (language party uses in offer of judgment, not undisclosed subjective intent, determines meaning). Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment for Matar. Judgment affirmed.