| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 104: |
Line 104: |
|
| |
|
| ===Causes of uncertainty=== | | ===Causes of uncertainty=== |
| A written agreement may be uncertain because of blanks left therein,<ref>Ill.--Chumasero v. G ilbert. 24 Il l. 293.<br /><br />
| | |
| Ind.-Atklns v. Van Buren School Tp., 77 Ind. 447. But see Marion School Tp. v. Carpenter, 12 Ind. A. 191, 89 NE 878 (where parol evidence was admitted to remove uncertainty occasioned by blanks in a teacher's contract).<br /><br />
| |
| Mlnn.--Shepard v. Carpenter, 54 Minn. 153. 66 NW 906.<br /><br />
| |
| N. Y.-Rollin v. Pickett, 2 Hi ll 65!.<br /><br />
| |
| N. C.-Rhyne v. Rhyne, 1 61 N. C. 400. 66 SE 348.<br /><br />
| |
| Eng.-Fyfe v. Arbuthnot, 1 De G. & J. 406, 58 EngCh 815, U Reprint 780. 15. N. R.</ref> or because of failure to name the parties;<ref>Webster v. Ela, 5 N. R. 540; Marshall v. White's Creek Tp. Co., 7 Coldw. (Tenn.) 252.</ref> or because it is so misspelled or ungrammatical, etc., that it has no meaning at all.<ref>Cheney Bigelow Wire Works v. Sorrell, 142 Maas. 442, 8 NE 331. See Gilpatrick v. Foster, 12 Ill. 335 (where a credit of "50" was indorsed on a note).</ref> But a contract is not uncertain because some of the terms of an offer are part of a conversation.<ref>Mercer Electric Mfg. Co., v. Connecticut Electric Mfg. Co., 87 Conn. 691, 89 A 909.</ref> Further, parties contracting in terms of familiar significance in respect to a particular business, service, or relation need not, in order to impose mutual obligations by their respective engagements, explain or define in their contract terms which, to those not informed as the contracting parties are, may have no meaning or tangible effect.<ref>Sloss-Shemeld Steel, etc., Co. v. Payne, 186 Ala. 341, 64 S 617.</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Effect of subsequent acts=== | | ===Effect of subsequent acts=== |
| A contract which is uncertain when made may, after its execution, be rendered certain by practical construction, or otherwise;<ref>Gould v. Gunn, 161 Iowa 155. 140 NW 380: Stanley v. SumrelL (Tex. Clv. A.) 163 SW 697: Ryan v. Hanna, 89 WS!!h. 379. 154 P 4 3 6 ; Sweet v. Arch ibald, 47 N. S. SS, 11 DomLR 670. 12 EaatLR 486.<br /><br />
| | |
| '''[a] Illustrations.'''--
| |
| # An action will lie on an instrument promising to pay a given sum on the happening of a contingency, on the theory that the only uncertain element in the contract, that of time, has been rendered certain by the happening of the event. Ryan v. Hanna, 89 Wash. 379, 154 P 436.
| |
| # A contract by which a landlord agreed to purchase all the tenant's kaffir corn, except the amount which the tenant wished to feed his teams, was rendered certain as to the subject matter, when the tenant tendered to the landlord a definite amount of the corn. Stanley v. Sumrel, (Tex. Civ. A.) 136 SW 697.
| |
| # Defendants, in an action to obtain an accounting and to recover one-third of the profits of construction contracts based on a contract whereby plaintiffs furnished money and credit, after completion of the construction contracts and receipt of payment, could not defeat recovery on the ground that the contract sued on was uncertain. McDougall v. McDonald, 86 Wash. 334, 160 P 628.<br /><br />
| |
| '''Practical construction of contract''' see [[Contracts/Construction and Operation#Practical Construction or Construction by Parties|Construction and Operation § Practical Construction or Construction by Parties]].</ref> but a contract which is sufficiently definite when made cannot be rendered indefinite by subsequent acts of a party.<ref>Fraker v. Hyde, 136 App. Dt 64. 11 9 NYS 879.</ref> Payments made on account of a contract which is void because of indefiniteness will not validate it.<ref>Briggs v. Morris, 244 Pa. 139, 90 A 532.</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Contract excluding remedy=== | | ===Contract excluding remedy=== |
| A contract which excludes some remedy given by law should be so definite and positive in its terms as to show the clear intention of the parties so to do.<ref>Straus v. Yeager, 48 Ind. A 448, 93 NE 877.</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Contract in favor of a third person=== | | |
| A contract in favor of a third person is void for uncertainty, where it does not fix the benefit to accrue to him.<ref>Miller v. Crusel, 135 La. 649, 5 S 873 (holding that, where a contract containing a stipulation In favor of a third person does not fix the benefit to accrue to him, but is conditioned on a subsequent agreement fixing such benefit, it lapses when the parties fail to agree).</ref>
| | ===A contract in favor of a third person=== |
| | |
|
| |
|
| ==Intention Capable of Ascertainment== | | ==Intention Capable of Ascertainment== |
