The construction and interpretation of a written agreement are questions of law that we review for correctness. See Ophus v. Fritz, 2000 MT 251, ¶ 19, 301 Mont. 447, 11 P.3d 1192; see also Mary J. Baker Revocable Trust v. Cenex Harvest States, Coops., Inc., 2007 MT 159, ¶ 19, 338 Mont. 41, 50, 164 P.3d 851, 857. Whether an ambiguity exists in a contract is also a question of law reviewed for correctness. Doble v. Bernhard, 1998 MT 124, ¶ 19, 289 Mont. 80, 959 P.2d 488; see also Johnston v. Centennial Log Homes & Furnishings, Inc., 2013 MT 179, ¶ 25, 370 Mont. 529, 537, 305 P.3d 781, 787.
The determination of whether a party materially breached a contract is a question of fact. See Flaig v. Gramm, 1999 MT 181, P25, 295 Mont. 297, 983 P.2d 396; see also Norwood v. Serv. Distrib., Inc., 2000 MT 4, ¶ 35, 297 Mont. 473, 485, 994 P.2d 25, 33. We review a district court's findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly erroneous. See Cut Bank School Dist. No. 15 v. Rummel, 2002 MT 248, P 5, 312 Mont. 143, 58 P.3d 159; see also CNJ Distrib. Corp. v. D&F Farms, Inc., 2013 MT 267, ¶ 34, 372 Mont. 28, 33, 309 P.3d 1002, 1006.