| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 126: |
Line 126: |
|
| |
|
| ==Intention Capable of Ascertainment== | | ==Intention Capable of Ascertainment== |
| If, with the aid of the usual tests and principles of construction,<ref>See [[Contracts/Construction and Operation|Construction and Operation]]</ref> the court is able to ascertain and to enforce the intention of the parties, their agreement will not be held uncertain.<ref>U. S.-Ra. mey Lumber Co. v. J bn S ch roe der Lumber Co., 2 3 7 Fed. l . 1 50 CCA 24 1; H ar ms v. S t e rn , ! - ed. 581 ; Namqult Wo rsted Co. T. Whi tman, 221 Fed. 4 9 , 136 CCA 575; Purdom Naval S to es Co. v. estern Union Tel. Co., 153 Fed. 327.<br /><br />
| |
| Ala.-Troy Fertilizer Co. v. Lo ga n, 6 Ala.. 619, 12 S 712.<br /><br />
| |
| Colo.-R enderson v. Spratlen, 44 Colo. 278,' 98 P H, 19 LRANS 6 5 5 ; Min., etc.. Co. v. Reed, 3 2 Colo. 50,. 77 p 240.<br /><br />
| |
| Fla.-Booske v. Gulf Ice Co., 2 4 l&.. 550. 5 s 247.<br /><br />
| |
| Ga.-Smith v. Bell, 30 Ga. 919 ; v. Con ner, 21 Ga. 385 ; Co hn v. Brown. 7 Ga. A. 395: 6 6 SE 1038 ; .t-emer Co. v. Dickerson, 1 Ga. A. 63, S7 SE 911.<br /><br />
| |
| Ill-Grier v. Put e rba u gh , 108 Ill. ••2: Wolf v. Willltts, 35 Ill. 88; Ell ot( vr North e rn Trust Co . . 178 Ill. A 439.<br /><br />
| |
| Ind.-Mart in v. Mu r phy, 129 Ind. H , 28 NE 1118; Witty v. Mlchiga)l uL L. Ins. Co . . 123 Ind. 411, 24 'E 141. 18 AmSR 327, 8 LRA 3 65 ; ::..dollett v. Kyle, S1 Ind. 446; Car · e r v. Richart, (A.) 114 N.E 110.<br /><br />
| |
| Iowa.-Ryan v. Litchfield, 162 Iowa J, 1H NW 313; Waterloo Firs t Nat. an1r. "' · Park, 117 Iowa 6 5 2 , 91 N W :U oli4 0 . Edwards, 9 3 Iowa 477,<br /><br />
| |
| Ky.-Lew1s v. Creech, 1 6 2 Ky. 7 6 3 , :a SW 133; Pu gh v. J acks on , 154 - . U9 . 157 SW 1082.<br /><br />
| |
| Mass.-Elastl c Tip Co. v. Graham, 114 Mass. 6 07.· 55 NE 315; Ray mond v Rhodes, 136 Mass. 337; Crawford eston. 131 Mass. 2 8 3 ; Gilman v. •. gh t. 13 Gray 356, 74 AmD 634 ; elps v. Sheldon, 14 Pick. 50, 23 • .ounn 659.<br /><br />
| |
| Mich.-Illinols Roofing, etc., Co. v. Aerial Adv. Co., 142 Mich. 6 9 8 . 106 W Z74 ; La.nford v. U. S. Wo oden • Ware Co., 127 Mich. 614, 8 6 NW 3. ' <br /><br />
| |
| Minn..-scott v. T. W. Stevenson '"y. . 130 Minn. 151, 1 5 3 NW 316; NaOJ)al Pl'otectJ ve Assoc. v. Prentice Brown Stone Co., 49 1\IInn. 220. 51 .91.6.<br /><br />
| |
| Mo.- Browning v. North Missouri ,at R.. Co,. 188 SW 143; Vo orh ees , Loulsl.a.na: Purcha se Ex posi tion Co., - 1 'Ho. 418, 147 SW 783 ; Ru se, e tc., etc.. Co. v. Heinze, 102 Mo. 241, 756.<br /><br />
| |
| Nebr.--Kaufman v. U. S. National -- 31 Nebr. 661, 48 NW 738.<br /><br />
| |
| Nev.- Hyman v. Kelly, 1 Nev. l79.<br /><br />
| |
| N.M.-Bates v. Ch i l de rs, 4 N. M. . zo p 14j4.<br /><br />
| |
| N.Y.- Fabbri v. Meyer, 169 App. 681, 165 NYS 502; Shubert v. Angeles, 80 App. Dlv. 625, 80 NYS<br /><br />
| |
| Or.- Eugene v. Chambers' Power Co., Or. 152. 159 P 576 ; Patterson v. Chambers Power Co., 81 Or. ... UJ! P 568.<br /><br />
| |
| Pa.- In re Compton, 30 Pa. Super.<br /><br />
| |
| Tenn.- Levering v. Memphis, 7 ._pisr., :iii. T . <br /><br />
| |
| Tex.- Hales v. Peters. ( C iv. A.) • - 3 6; Lucia v. Adams, 36 Tex. . 46.4, 82c . s w 335.<br /><br />
| |
| Utah.-Morgan v. Child, 41 Utah . 1: p 621. .<br /><br />
| |
| Va.- Chichester v. Vass, 1 Munf,<br /><br />
| |
| Wash.- Waring v. Loomis, 35 Wash. 5. 76 P 51 0. See Weldon v. Degan, 86 Wash. 442, 450, 150 P 1184 (holding, however, that though a written contract which is not certain, in so far as it is inartistically drawn, will be enforced if it can be made certain, yet in view of Remington & B. Code f 3679. relating to the requisites of ar tic les of incorporation, n o action could be maintained on a w ri t t en contract for the organizat ion of a. corporation. w here all of the esse n t ia ls of s uc h contract save the purpose of the organization, the capital, and its distribution would have to be Supplied by parol).<br /><br />
| |
| Wis.-Sulzer v. Moye·r, 161 Wis. 435, 154 NW 700; McCall Co. v. l"ks, 107 Wis. 232, 83 NW 300.
| |
| {{Quote|Certainty, not uncertainty, Is to be so ught for. It is only after applyin g all t)le tests which t he rules of law and of reaso n will pe r m i t, to a con trac t, and a fa ilure thereby to discover, reasonably, what the parties agreed t<>, that the court s hou ld say It is too uncertain to be enforced.}} McCall Co. v. leks, 107 Wis. 232. 237, 83 NW 300.<br />
| |
| {{Quote|The law leans . against th e destruction of co n t r ac t s on t he ground of uncertainty. and a contract will not be declared void on that ground, unless, after reaalng U an d interpr etin g it in the li gh t of t h e circu m s tan c e s under whkh It was made, and supplying or rejecting w or ds necessary to carry int<> effect th e reason ab l e intention of the parties, their In te nt ion can not b!) fai r l y collected and effectuated.}} Leffler Co. v. D ick e rson, 1 Ga. A. 63, 57 SE 911.<br /><br />
| |
| '''[a] Particular agreements held sufficient.'''--
| |
| # A promise to give a party the sole r i gh t to sel l goods in a. c e rta i n place "and the terri tory tributary thereto." Kau fma n v. Farley Mfg. Co., 78 Iowa 679, 43 NW 6 1 2, 16 AmSR 462 .
| |
| # A dealer's co ntract to b u y certain goods from a. manufacturer d u ri n g the n e x t selling seaso n. Scott v. T. W. Stevenson Co., 130 M i nn . 151, 1 5 3 NW 3 1 6.
| |
| # A distributing agency to r e m ain in forc e as lo ng as goods round ready sale. Sutliff v. Seidenberg. 132 Cal. 63, 64 P 131, 4 6 9 .
| |
| # An ex c l usive age ncy for t h e sale of dress pa t ter ns. Standard Fashion Co. v. Ostrom, 16 Ap p. Div. 220, 44 NYS 666.
| |
| # An agreement to sell a st o c k o f merc ha nd ise "all soiled or d ama ged goods at val uation." Sergeant v. Dwyer. 44 Mi nn . 309, 46 NW 444.
| |
| # A c o n t rac t by a l u m be r company to sell all the l u mbe r of certa i n grad es that It should "m an ufacture or own" du r in g a s ea s o n. Ramey Lumber Co. v. John Schroeder Lumber Co.. 237 Fed. 39, 150 CCA 241.
| |
| # The pay m e n t of a reasonable compe nsa ti o n for time We h ner v. B au e r, 160 Fed. 2 4 0 .
| |
| # A prom ise to give a person "stead y and permanent employment." Pe nnsylvania Co. v. Dolan, 6 Ind. A. 109, 32 NE 802.
| |
| # An agreem e n t to employ the claimant ��ot his old wages as lo n g as he was able to work. Carter v. Richart, (Ind. A. ) 114 NE 110.
| |
| # An agreement to e m ploy a p ers on "as lon g as the w o r ks were ke pt running, or unti l - the plaintiff saw fit to quit." Carte r White Lead Co. v. Klnlln, 47 Nebr. 409, U2, 66 NW 536.
| |
| # A verba l a greeme nt, on the payment o f t h r e e hundred dolla.rs to the injured employee, that the e m p l oy e r and the casua lty c o mpa ny wou ld "make it righ t" in case he fai led to recover w i t h i n six weeks. Brennan v. E m p l o yer s ' Lia bil ity Assur. Co rp ., 213 Mass. 365, 100 NE 633.
| |
| # An agreement to pay a pers on wages "wh ile he was disabled ." Pierce v. Tennessee Coal. etc .. R. Co .. 110 Ala. 533, 19 S 2 2 .
| |
| # A contract to carry the personal freight of cer tai n parties bet ween designated poln.ts free of c ha rl!'e. Hurley v. Big Sandv. etc., R. C.,. , 137 Ky. 2 1 6, 125 SW 302.
| |
| # A promIse to erect a "good steam sawml11." Fra ley v. Bentley. 1 Oak. 25. 46 NW 506.
| |
| # A pr o m ise fljge'f:l!'i! a "good bridge. " Lo n g v. Battle Creek. 39 Mich. 323, 33 AthR 384.
| |
| # A promise t o e rect a "neat and tastefu l" station. Law rence v. Saratoga Lake R. Co., 3 NY.St 7 4 3 .
| |
| # An a gre e men t to give a "good and sulflcient" note. Arms tro ng v. And re w s , 109 Mich . 537. 67 NW 5 67.
| |
| # The pay men t of su ch sum as s hou l d be 'right" or satisfac tory for the withdrawal of a will co ntest. S i lver v. Graves, 2 1 0 Mass. 2 6, 95 NE 948.
| |
| # The production of formulas for a "fair and equitable share of the net p rofits. " Noble v. Joseph Bul'nett Co., 208 Mass. 75, 82. 94 NE 289.
| |
| # An agreement to turn over inv-entions and to u s e one's be st efforts to make further improvements. Ra ymon d v. White, 119 Mich. 438, 7 8 NW 469.
| |
| # The payment of proportionate . e xpe nses or pu mpIng m i ning properties. Fisk Min . . etc .. Co. v. Reed. 32 Colo. 506, 77 P 240.
| |
| # A gift of pro per ty for care and services. Banta v. Banta, 84 J\Pp. Div. 138, 82 NYS 113.
| |
| #An agreement by the fa ther to make a na tu ra l child equ al with his legitimate chi ld ren . Lewis v. Creech. 162 Ky . 763, 173 SW 133.
| |
| # A tran s fer o f property t o a. corporation to be formed. Electric Fireproofing Co. v. S m i th. 113 Ap p. Dlv. 615, 99 NYS 3 7.
| |
| # The fu rn i shing o f mining Information and th e purchase of stock. Morgan v. Child , 41 Utah 5 62, 128 P 521.
| |
| # An agree ment to support, not llxlng am ou nt to be paid. Hend erson v. Sp ra t l en , 44 Colo. 278, 98 P 14, 19 L RANS 655.
| |
| # The cessa t i o n of the practke of medicine w ithin certain territorial limits un less forced to re t urn by reaso n of some u n fo res e e n necessity. Ryan v. Ha m il to n , 205 Ill. 191. 68 NE 781 [rev 103 Ill. A. 212).
| |
| # The sa l e of fa ir grounds for part cash ·a nd "one-third of the proceeds o f ali privileges incident t<> the holding of fa irs, races or other events of like character upon said grounds." Dargin v. Hewlitt, 115 Ala. 510, 5H . 22 S 128.
| |
| # A'n agreemen t to erfJct a s tore building on certa.ln premises a t some convenient place to be thereafter agrt>ed on by the p ar t ies, and that a. stock of good s shall be kept therein and a genera l merca ntile bu s in e ss c.arrled on. Iowa-M innesota Land Co. v. Con n e r. 136 Iowa 674, 112 N'W 820.
| |
| # An a gree m e n t by on e party to furnish threfl hundred men on demand, a nd by the other to wo rk not less than one hundred men. McConn ell v. Arkansas Brick, etc., Co., 70 Ark. 668, 69 SW 559.
| |
| # To c on vey land to a child in consldern.t i on of his being allo w ed to na me s u ch ch ild. Dal ly v. Minnick, 117 Iowa 563, 91 N W 913, 60 LRA 840.
| |
| # An o ra l agreement contemporan e o u s with or prior to the grant, whereby the purchaser· agrees to pay, as f urt her consideration, th e difference bet w e e n the sum stated In the grant and such sum as he should t her eaf t e r pay for c ert ain other lots. Pau l l v. Pittsbu rgh, etc., R. Co., 72 W. Va. 2 6 3 . 78 SE 100.
| |
| # A contract certifying that defendant agreed t<> pay plaintiff twenty-live d ol la rs in advance on the first of each mo nt h for six m o n th s , commencing on a certai n day, fo r the privilege of taking stone from d u mp at N avenue, no other permit to be gr2. nted by plaintiff during the time speci fied Hamilton v. Smith , 141 NY S 57·1.
| |
| # A contract for the purchase of automobiles to be reso l d on c omm issio n. reserving to the manufacturer t he right to change t he price at which they- w e re to be sol d. Th omas v. An th on y, (Cal. A.) 157 p 823.</ref> So an agreement drawn up by illiterate persons will not be held uncertain, if it is possible for the court to ascertain their meaning.<ref>Atwood v. Cobb, 16 Pick. (Mass.), 227, 26 AmD 657.</ref> While a contract, incomplete on its face, may thereby be ambiguous, it is not necessarily void.<ref>Wisconsin Farm Co. v. Watson, 160 Wis. 638, 152 NW 449.</ref> Absolute certainty is not required.
| |
|
| |
|
| That is certain which may be rendered certain, according to the maxim, ''Id certum est quod certum reddi potest''.<ref>U. S.-Loudenback Fertilizer Co. v. Tennessee Ph os phate Co., 121 Fed. 298, 58 CCA 220, 61 LRA 402; Hitchcock v. Galveston, 1 2 F. Cas. No. 6, 6 3 4 , 3 Woods 2 8 7 .<br /><br />
| |
| Ala.-Troy Fertilizer Co. v . Logan, 96 Ala. 6 1 9 . 12 S 7 1 2 ; Boykln v. Mo- bile Bank, 7 2 Ala. 2 6 2 , 4 7 A m R 4 0 8 ; InMobile, etc.. R. Co. v. Talman. 1 6 Ala. 4 7 2 ; Barney Coal Co. v. Davis, 9 Ala. A. 2 3 5 , 6 2 S 9 85.<br /><br />
| |
| Ark.-McConnell v. Arka nsas Brick, etc., Co., 70 Ark. 568, 69 SW 5 5 9 .<br /><br />
| |
| Fla. -Hinote v. Brigman, • 4 Fla. 5 8 9 , 33 S 3 0 3 .<br /><br />
| |
| Ga.-Mimms v. J. L. Betts Co .. 9 Ga. A. 7 1 8 , 72 SE 2 7 1 . 111.-Hayea v. O' Brien, 149 I l l. 403, 37 NE 7 3 , 2& LRA 5 5 5 ; Scheidecker v. West gate, 1 6 4 Ill. A. 3 8 9 .<br /><br />
| |
| Ind.-Sutton v. Sears, 1 0 I n d . 2 2 3 ; Marion School Tp. v. Carpentet', 12 Ind. A. 1 9 1, 39 NE 8 7 8 ; Indianapoli s Cabi net Co. v. Herrmann, 1 Ind. A. 462. 34 NE 5 7 9.<br /><br />
| |
| Iowa.-Dally v. M l n�:�lck. 1 1 7 Iowa 563. 91 NW 913, 60 LilA 849.,;. Miller v. Kendi g, 55 Iowa 1 7 4 . 1 N vv 500.<br /><br />
| |
| Ky.-Pugh v. Jackson, 1 5 4 Ky. 6 4 9 , 1 5 7 SW 1 0 8 2 [ reb den 1 5 4 Ky. 7 7 2. 159 SW 600]; Schweitzer v. S c hw elt - zer, 8 2 SW o 2 5 , 28 KyL 8 8 8 .<br /><br />
| |
| La .-Kent v. Davis Bros. Lumber Co .. 1 2 2 La. 1 0 4 8 , 48 s 4 5 1 .<br /><br />
| |
| Mass.-Bea.ch, etc., Co. v. A merican Steam Gauge, e tc., Mfg. Co., 20 2 Mass. 177, 88 NE 924,i. Carnlg v. C arr, 167 Mass. 5H. 46 NJ!i 117 , 5 7 AmS R 4 8 8, 35 LRA 6 1 2 .<br /><br />
| |
| Mich.-Loveridge v. Shur ts, 111 M ich. 6 1 8 . 70 NW 1 3 2 ; Rhea v . Mey- 1 1 1 Ml h 1 ' 0 69 N W 2 3 9 Brl ers. c · .. • ; g- ham v. Marti n, 1 0 3 Mich. 1 5 0, 61 NW 2 76.<br /><br />
| |
| Minn.-Klemlk v. Henricksen Jewelry Co., 1 2 8 Minn. 4 9 0, 1 5 1 NW 2 0 3.<br /><br />
| |
| Mo.-Be lch v. Miller, 32 Mo. A. 387. · Mont.-Prlce v. Stlpek, 3 9 Mont. 4 2 6 ; 1 0 4 P 1 9 5 i Noyes v . Young, 3 2 Mont. 2 2 6 , 79 .t:" 1 0 6 3 .<br /><br />
| |
| Nebr.-Woods v. Hart, 5 0 Nebr. 4 9 7 , 7 0 NW 5 3 .<br /><br />
| |
| N. H .-Wi lls v. Cutler, 61 N. H. 405.<br /><br />
| |
| N. J .-Pa rke r v. Pettit. 4 3 N. J. L. 5 1 2.<br /><br />
| |
| N. Y .-Routledge v. Worthington aucCo .. 1 1 9 N. Y. 5 9 2 , 2 3 NE 1 1 1 1 ; San Remo Copper Min. Co. v. Moneus 1 4 9 App. Dlv. 2 6 , 1 3 3 NYS 5 0 9 ; War- ren v. Winne, 2 La ll1!l. 209 ; Brady v. InSmith. 8 Mis c. 465, 28 NYS 776.<br /><br />
| |
| N. C.-Carpenter v. Med ford. 99 N. C. 495. 6 SE 785, 6 AmSR 6 3 6.<br /><br />
| |
| Oh.-Sterllng Wrench C o. v. Am- stu tz. 6 0 Oh. St. 4 84, 34 NE 79•.<br /><br />
| |
| Pa .-Northern Cent. R. Co. v. Wal - worth, 1 93 Pa. 207 , H A 2 6 3, 7 4 Am deterSR 683 ; Tho mpson v. Stevens, 7 1 Pa. 1 61 : R ich ardson v. Gos ser, 26 Pa.. 335. .<br /><br />
| |
| Tenn.-Lee v. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707 , 4 SW 8 3 5 . 4 AmSR 8 0 0.<br /><br />
| |
| Tex.-Hales v. Peters, (Civ. A.> 1 62 SW 386; Shortrld v. Allen, 2 Tex. Clv. A. 193, 21 S 419.<br /><br />
| |
| Vt.-Hakes v . Hotchkiss, 23 Vt . 231<br /><br />
| |
| Wash.- Faucett v. Northern Clay Co., Wash. 382, 146 P 857.<br /><br />
| |
| Wis.- Jelinek v. Baer, 153 Wis. 426, 141 NW 271.<br /><br />
| |
| '''[a] Illustration.'''-A contract by defendant, on purchasing from the com munity administrator la nd w h ich was the property ot the com- munlty, to pay the c h i l dren the value comof th eir Interest In the commu nit y land so sold Is held not too unccertain to be enforced, the value of such interest being capable of being ascertained by mathematical calculatlon. Hales v. Petere, (Tex. Clv. A. ) 1 6 2 SW 3 8 6 .<br /><br />
| |
| '''[b] Mere indefiniteness as to the amount of material''' or goods which may be delivered under a contrRct. or uncertainty even as to w hether any will b e delivered, Is not neces- sarl ly a fat(l.l u ncertainty. It Is suf- ftclent that there be a d istinct agree- ment, supported by a suftlclent con- slderaUon, to take such quantity as may be delivered, and to pay for the sAme at a price named ln. or ascer- t al na bl e by, s u ch agree m e nt. Me- Call Co. v. leks. 107 Wis. 282, 83 NW 300. To s ame effec t Al der ton v. Wll- llams. 139 Mich. 296, 102 NW 753. See also Eas ter n R. Co. v. Tuteu r. 127 Wis. 382, 106 NW 1 067.<br /><br />
| |
| '''Construction of written contracts''' see [[Contracts/Construction and Operation#General Rules of Construction|Construction and Operation § General Rules of Construction]].</ref> A promise not in itself certain may be rendered certain by a reference to something certain.<ref>U. S.-American-Paclftc Constr. Co. v. Modern Steel Structural Co., 2 1 1 Fed. 8 4 9 , 1 2 8 CCA 3 7 5 ; Web- ner v. Bauer, 1 60 Fed. 2 4 0 ; Caldwell v. Lake County School D lst. No. 7. 55 Fed. 372.<br /><br />
| |
| Conn.-Harnden v. Merwin, 1 4 Conn. 4 1 8, 8 A 6 7 0 ; Lockwood v. Jea- up. 9 Conn. 2 7 2 .<br /><br />
| |
| Ill.-Whl te v. Hermann, 51 Ill. 2 4 3, 99 AmD 5 4 3 .<br /><br />
| |
| Ind.-Schreiber v. Butler, 84 Ind. 5 7 6 ; Carpenter v. Lockhart. 1 I nd. 434, Smith 326; Emshwlller v. Ty- ner, 1 6 Ind. A . 1 3 3 , 4 4 NE 8 1 1 ; In· dlanapol ls Cab (net Co. v. Herrman, 7 Ind. A. 462, 34 N E 579.<br /><br />
| |
| Mich.-Firs t Universalist Church v. P un gs, 126 Mich. 670, 86 NW 235; Lungerhausen v. Cri t tenden, 1 0 8 M ich. 173, 61 NW 270.<br /><br />
| |
| N. J.-Parker v. Pettit. 4 3 N. J. L. 6 1 2<br /><br />
| |
| N. Y.-Hayward v. Knickerbocker L. I ns. Co., 12 Daly 4 2 . Pa..-T hompson v. Stevena, 7 1 Pa 1 6 1 .<br /><br />
| |
| Wis.-Washbu rn v. Fletcher, 42 Wis. 1 5 2 ; Northwestern Iron Co. v. Meade. 2 1 Wis. 4 7 4 . 9 4 A m D 5 5 7 ; Cheney \'. Cook, 7 Wis. U 3 .<br /><br />
| |
| '''[ a ] Illustrations.'''-
| |
| # A promise to c o nvey a certain numbe r of acres o t land out of a large tract. the lo- catio n and the method of the ascer· t al nment being pointed out. Carpen- ter v. L o c khart, 1 Ind. 434 ; Emsh- wlller v. Tyner, 1 6 Ind. A. 1 3 3 , H NE 81 1 ; Washburn v. Fletcber 4 2 Wis. 1 5 2 ; Cheney v. Cook, 7 vv ls. 4 1 3.
| |
| # A contract to convey a nu mber of acres o ut of a la rger tract It a survey or could locate t hem. White v. H ermann , lil 11 1. 243, 99 Am D 6 43.
| |
| # A p ro m ise to pay a teach er the same salary " as was esta blished at the date of th e con- t ract for like se rvices by the board ot directors of the s c hoo l district w ithin which the city ot Portl an d Is si tu ated . " Caldwell v. Lake County School Dlat. No. 7, 5 6 Fed. 312.
| |
| # A pro mise maki ng the promisor's l la bll lty that which may be Imposed by a ce rta in statute. Ha md en v. Mer- win, 6 4 Conn. 418, 8 A 670.
| |
| #A prom ise to sell all the ry e s traw that the promi sor "had to spare," not exceeding thr�:e tons, the court s ay i ng: "Jf t h ere wa s no oth er sat- l s tactory evidence on th at subject. the q ua nt ity of straw the defenda nt sold to Hen drk:kson a ft er the con- t ract with the plaintiff was made, wa s compe ten t evidence o t the q ua n- tlty he had to spare." Pa rk e r v. Pettit. 43 N. J. L. 512. 515.
| |
| # A promise to pay a ceriAi n percentage of t he cost of a c h urc h l' lte when such cost Is as certa i n e d. First Universalist Church v. Pun. 126 Mich. 670, 86 NW 235.
| |
| # A pr o m ise to pay an attorney tor his services an.;. amoun t equal to that paid another attorney In th e ac tion. Lungerhau- s e n v. Crittenden , 103 Mi c h. 171, &1 NW 270.
| |
| # A promlee to "the heirs of Jonathan Jewp," a livi ng peraon. Lockwood v. Jesup, 9 Co nn. %7%.
| |
| # An agreement to deliver so many "car loads" of a certain commodity. Schreiber v . Butler, 8 4 Ind. 676· InMobile, dlanapoll s Cabinet Co. v. Herrman. 1 Ind. A. 4 6Z , 34 NE 5 7 9 .
| |
| # A promise to give a nurse "plenty after he was gone. so that she need not to work." T ho mpson v. Stevens. 71 Pa. 161. 189 .
| |
| # An agreemt that. If the h older ot a fo llcy cahcel I t, "a fai r proportio n o the premiums will be retu rned." Hayward v. Kn lcker- bo cker L. Ins. Co., 12 Daly (N. Y.l 42.
| |
| # A promi s e to supply all the go ods of p. certain kind which the buyer mlg'ht "need" or "requi re" ! n his business. S e e Intra 1 1 9 1 .
| |
| # An offer by letter to sel l land a.t "ten per acre" and two years• tax and an acceptance. nami ng th" am ou nt. Northwestern Iron Co. ,._ Meade, 2 1 Wis. 4 7 4 , 94 AmD 6 67.<br /><br />
| |
| '''[b] Old English Cases.'''--
| |
| # In an ol case A, In considera ti on that B would marry his daughter, promised t ha t he w ou ld gi ve her a child' s por- tlon. and that at the tl of his death he would give to her aa much as a n v of his other ch ildren, except his eld·- eat aon. This was held to be a good p ro l!l lse, · since. although a child' s portion was alto 'f ether uncertai n, yet wha t the rest o the chi l dr en except the e ldes t got reduc ed It to a isum- clent certa i n ty. Sil vester's Case. Poph. H8. 79 Reprint 1248; Oliver' s Case, 2 Rolle 1 0 4, 81 Reprint 687.
| |
| # But if a citizen of London promises a child's portion, that of itself is sufficiently certain, for by the custom there it is certain how much each child will have. Oliver's Case, supra.</ref> An offer to sell goods need not specify the price, for, if no price is stated, it will be presumed that the reasonable market price waa intended. And in other like cases, when the terms are not absolutely certain, it is held that the parties have in effect referred the matter to a court or jury in case they disagree about it themselves.<ref>Worthington v. Beeman, 91 Fed. 232, 33 CCA 476; Miller v. Kendig, 5 5 Iowa 1 7 4 , 7 NW &00.<br /><br />
| |
| '''[a] Application of Rule.'''-- Where by c on tract efendant gave plal n titr the ex c lusive sale of a manufact u red article In a certain territory during a spe c lfted term, and the contract provided that In case plalntUt aucCo ceeded In doing such a bualneas as defendant might "reasonably expec t" I t should be renewed for a further term, the contract was not too InSmith. deftn l te or u ncertain In Its terms but would support an a c t io n for dam ages for a refusal of dbfendant t o renew at t he expiration ot the ftrs t term, the amount o f bu s lneaa wh i ch defendan t coul d reasonably expect be ing a matter which might be deterSR mined b y a j ury. Worthington v. Beeman. 91 Fed. 232, 33 CCA f75.<br /><br />
| |
| '''[b] Contract for joint use of railroad.'''-- In a suit to com pel speclftc performance of a contract with th is clause, "Said party of the second part shall permit under such reasonable regulations and terms as may be a greed upon, other railroads to use its right of way through the park and up to the terminus of its road in the city of St. Louis, upon such terms and for such fair and equitable compensation to be paid to it therefor as may be agreed upon by such companies," the court said that although the "statement is that the compensation is to be such 'as may be agreed upon by such companies,' yet the statement that it is to be 'fair and equitable' plainly brings in the element of its determination by a court of equity if the parties agree upon it, very well; but If they do not, still the right of way is to be enjoyed upon making compensation, and the only way to ascertain what is a 'fair and equitable' compensation therefor is to determine it by a court of equity. Such is, in substance, the agreement of the parties." Joy v. St. Louis, 138 U.S. 1, 8, 43, 11 SCt 243, 34 L. ed. 843.<br /><br />
| |
| '''[c] Work or things satisfactory to promisor.'''-
| |
| *There are a few anomalous cases holding that where a person has agreed to do work or to furnish a thing whic h shall be satisfactory to the promisor, he will be intended to have left the question of satisfaction to the judgment of a court or jury. Hawkins v. Graham, 129 Mass. 284, 21 NE 312, 14 AmSR 618; Duplex Safety Boiler, etc., Co. v . Garden,. 101 N.Y. 387, 4 NE 749, 64 AmR 709; Folliard v. Wallace. 2 Johns. (N.Y.) 395.
| |
| * The weight of authority, however, is strongly against this view. See [[Contracts/Sufficiency of performance|Sufficiency of performance]].</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Time for performance or termination=== | | ===Time for performance or termination=== |
| The failure of an executory contraet to state the time within which it is to be performed does not render it void for uncertainty, since it will be implied that performance is to be within a reasonable time.<ref>Burnell v. Bradbury, 67 Kan. 762, 74 P 279 ; Atwood v. Cobb, 16 Pick. (Mas.) 277, 26 AmD 657; Van Woert v. Albany, etc., R. Co., 67 Y S3 Superior v. Douglas County Tel. Co., 141 Wis. 363, 122 NW 1023. See South Chicago EJ. Co. v. United Grain Co., 165 Fed. 132, 91A166 (holding, where correpondence and memorandum contained all of the requisites of a complete contract, and were adopted as such after performance had been entered upon, that it was immaterial that the parties dld not therein fix any particular day on which the contract should go into effect).<br /><br />
| | |
| '''Construction of contracts as to time for performance''' see [[Contracts/Construction and Operation#Time|Construction and Operation § Time]].</ref> Nor is a contract fatally indefinite merely because it does not specify a time presently definite for its termination.<ref>Brown v. Birmingham Water Works Co., 169 Ala. 230, 52s 916; Cothran v. Witham, 123 Ga. 190, 6115; Hauser v. Harding, 126 N C 295 35 SE 586; Superior v. Douglas County Tel. Co., 141 Wis. 363, 122 NW 1023.<br /><br />
| |
| '''[a] Illustrations'''.-
| |
| # Where the contract was to furnish a consumer water at a specified price as long as she used the premises as a dwelling, it was not defective for indefiniteness as to the length of time that it was to run. Brown v. Birmingham Water Works Co., 169 Ala. 230, 52 S 916.
| |
| # A contract not to engage in the practice of medicine within a certain territory, without specifying any time, is not invalid for uncertainty, since it is to be construed as enduring for the life of the promisor. Hauser v. Harding, 126 N.C. 295, 35 SE 686.
| |
| # A contract binding a telephone company operating in a city to maintain, without charge, telephones in the public offices of the city as long as it maintains and operates a telephone exchange in the city, fixes a time for its termination, and the contract is binding according to its terms. Superior v. Douglas County Tel. Co., 141 Wis. 363, 122 N W 1023.
| |
| # A c o n t ra c t s t a t i n g that a party had bo u g h t cer - taln sha res of stoc k, and h a d agreed not to sell any part of the stock at any time until he had first offered the same to plaintiff, giving him time to accept or purchase, is not void. Cothran v . W i tham , 1 2 3 Ga. 190. 51 SE 285.</ref> Further, a contract is not invalid because not performable until after the promisor's death.<ref>Butchel College v . Chamberloix, 3 Cal. A. 246, 84 P 1000.</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Partial uncertainty=== | | ===Partial uncertainty=== |
| A patent ambiguity which renders a clause of a contract uncertain and void will not invalidate the remainder of the instrument if there is enough left to constitute a complete contract.<ref>Lewis v. Creech, 162 Ky. 763, 173 SW 133; State v. Racine Sattley Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 134 SW 400.<br /><br />
| | |
| '''[a] Illustration.'''.-An agreement by th e father to make a natural child equal with his other children is not invalidated because of an ambiguous agreement to make such child financially independent. Lewis v. Creech, 162 Ky. 763, 173 SW 133.</ref> Further, the contract is not void because performance is, as to particular details, left subject to the subsequent agreement of the parties.<ref>Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Herringer, 158 Ky. 267, 164 SW 948.<br /><br />
| |
| '''[a] Illustration.'''.-A contract whereby a railroad, in consideration of an easement granted by a property owner, agreed to construct a private crossing was not void because it left the location to be agreed on by the property owner and an agent of the railroad company. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Herringer, 158 Ky. 267, 164 SW 948.</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| == References == | | == References == |
| {{Reflist|30em}} | | {{Reflist|30em}} |
