Contracts/Uncertainty: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Adapted and imported text from Corpus Juris, The American Law Book Co., New York, NY (1917))
 
(Adapted and imported text from Corpus Juris, The American Law Book Co., New York, NY (1917))
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===
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>
 


==Intention Capable of Ascertainment==
==Intention Capable of Ascertainment==

Revision as of 04:13, August 18, 2020


Contracts Treatise
Table of Contents
Contracts Outline
Introduction and Definitions
Introduction
Definitions
Elements
Contract law in the United States
Contract formation
Parties
Offer
Acceptance
Intention to Bind
Formal requisites
Mailbox rule
Mirror image rule
Invitation to deal
Firm offer
Consideration
Consent
Implication-in-fact
Collateral contract
Modification
Merger
Uniform Commercial Code
Uniform Commercial Code
Course of dealing
Course of performance
UCC-1 financing statement
Uniform Commercial Code adoption
Defenses against formation
Lack of capacity
Duress
Undue influence
Illusory promise
Statute of frauds
Uncertainty
Non est factum
Contract interpretation
Governing law
Construction and Operation
Parol evidence rule
Contract of adhesion
Integration clause
Contra proferentem
Excuses for non-performance
Mistake
Misrepresentation
Frustration of purpose
Impossibility
Impracticability
Illegality
Unclean hands
Unconscionability
Accord and satisfaction
Rights of third parties
Privity of contract
Assignment
Delegation
Novation
Third-party beneficiary
Performance or Breach
Necessity of performance
Sufficiency of performance
Anticipatory repudiation
Cover
Exclusion clause
Efficient breach
Deviation
Fundamental breach
Termination
Termination
Rescission
Termination and rescission
Abrogation and rescission
Subsequent contract
Termination
Forfeiture
Remedies
Restitution
Specific performance
Liquidated damages
Punitive damages
Quasi-contractual obligations
Estoppel
Quantum meruit
Actions
Actions in General
Parties to Action
Pleading
Evidence
Questions of Law and Fact
Instructions
Trial and Judgment

Generally

It is essential to a contract that the nature and the extent of its obligations be certain.[1] If an agreement is uncertain it is because the offer was uncertain or ambiguous to begin with, for the acceptance is always required to be identical with the offer, or there is no meeting of minds and no agreement. If the person to whom the offer is made sees the uncertainty and proposes a change which will make the agreement certain, this puts an end to the offer, and the agreement which he has suggested is the result of his new offer and the acceptance of the original proposer. Therefore, if the offer is in any caae so indefinite as to make it impossible for a court to decide just what it means, and to fix exactly the legal liability of the parties, its acceptance cannot result in an enforceable agreement.[2] So where a contract of employment does not specify its duration, the position to be filled, nor the wages, it is void for uncertainty.[3] A contract which is too uncertain to be specifically enforced in equity[4] may, nevertheless, be the basis for a remedy at law in favor of a party who has wholly or partially performed it.[5] As a general rule, a contract which affords no practical basis on which damages for a breach may be ascertained is void for uncertainty.[6] Nevertheless, a contract may be sufficiently certain in that the acts which make up performance are expressed definitely enough to permit the court to tell whether the promisor has fulfilled them or not, and yet the damages from a failure to perform may not be susceptible of measurement.[7] And a contract is not uncertain because it is silent as to the damages for a breach.[8]

Causes of uncertainty

A written agreement may be uncertain because of blanks left therein,[9] or because of failure to name the parties;[10] or because it is so misspelled or ungrammatical, etc., that it has no meaning at all.[11] But a contract is not uncertain because some of the terms of an offer are part of a conversation.[12] 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.[13]

Effect of subsequent acts

A contract which is uncertain when made may, after its execution, be rendered certain by practical construction, or otherwise;[14] but a contract which is sufficiently definite when made cannot be rendered indefinite by subsequent acts of a party.[15] Payments made on account of a contract which is void because of indefiniteness will not validate it.[16]

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.[17]

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.[18]

Intention Capable of Ascertainment

Time for performance or termination

Partial uncertainty

References

  1. ↑ U. S.-Natlonal Electric Signal- lng Co. v. Fessenden, 207 Fed. 915. 125 CCA 363; Jones v. Vance Shoe Co .. 115 Fed. 707, 53 CCA 289.

    Ala.-Jones v. Lanier, 73 S 636; American Tie. etc., Co. v. Naylor Lumber Co., 190 Ala. 319, 67 S 246; Sloss-Sheffleld Steel. etc.. co. v. Payne. 186 Ala. 341. 64 S 617: Chr1s- tie v. Patton. 148 Ala. 324. 42 S 614: Pulliam v. Schimpf. 109 Ala. 179. 19 s 428 : Adams v. AdB.ms, 26 Ala. 272; Erwin v. Erwin, 25 Ala.. 236; Moore v. Smith, 19 Ala. 774.

    Ark.-Ashley, etc .. R. Co. v. Ba p;; gott, 125 Ark. 1. 187 SW 649,i Lyl., v. Jackson County, 23 Ark. 63.

    Cal.-Van Slyke v. Broadway Ins. co .. 115 Cal. 6H. 47 p 689, 928; W ine- burgh v. Gay, 27 Cal. A. 603. 150 p 1003iNelson v. Levy, 26 Ca.l. A. 367. 146 y 1068; In re Hayden, 1 Cal. A. 75, 81 p 6 6 8.

    Del.-Truitt v. Fahey, S Pennew. 673. 62 A 839.

    Ga.--Carr v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 141 Ga. 219, 80 SE 716: Burney v. Jones, 140 Ga. 758. 79 SE 840; ·Bunt- lng v. Dobeon, 126 Ga. 447, 64 SE 102 ; Barrow v. Pennington, 17 Ga. A. 481, 87 SE 719: Murphey v. Creamer, 10 Ga. A. 593, 74 SE 61; Oliver Constr. Co. v. Reeder, 71 Ga. A. 276, 66 SE 955.

    Hawaii. - Foster v. Honolulu Constr .. etc., Co., 21 Hawaii 689, 694 [cit Cyc).

    Ida.-Phelps v. Good, 16 Ida. 76, 86. 96 P 216 [cit Cyc).

    Ill.-Woods v. Evans, 113 Ill. 186, 65 AmR 409; Wallace v. Rappelye, 103 Ill. 665; Canterberry v. Miller, 76 Ill. 355; Breitenstein v. Independ- ent Button, etc .. Co .. 192 Ill. A. 399; Radzlnskl v. Ahlswede, 185 Ill. A. 513: Illinois L. Ins. Co. v. Belfeld, 184 Ill. A. 582: Almlnl Co. v. King, 92 til. A. %76.

    Ind.-Falrpla)" School Tp. v. O'Neal. 127 Ind. 96, 26 NE 686; Freed v. Mills, 120 Ind. 27. 22 NE 88: F!r11t v. Bonewltz, 3 Ind. 548.

    Iowa.-Gould v. Gunn, 161 Iowa 156, 140 NW 380; Rapp v. LlnebarOkl.--C ger, 125 NW 209; Faulkner v. Des Moines Drug Co., 117 Iowa. 120. 90 NW 585; Furst v. Tweed, 93 lo,..a 300, 61 NW 867; Palmer v. A lbee, 50 Iowa 429.

    Ky.--Chesapeake, etc.. R. Co. v. Herrlnger, 158 Ky. 267. 164 SW 948: Dean v. Meter, 8 Ky. Op. 746.

    La.-Mlller v. Cruse!, 136 La. 649, 65 S 873; Peet v. Meyer, 42 La. Ann. 1034. 8 S 534.

    Md.-WR.Shlngton, etc .. R. Co. v. Moss. 127 Md. 12, 96 A 273; De Beam v. De Bearn, 126 Md. 629. 96 A 476; Parks v. Griffith, etc., Co., 123 Md. 233, 91 A 581 ; Arundel Realty Co. v. Maryland Electric R. Co., 116 )(d. 257, 81 A 787. 38 LRANS 167; Blaklfor stone v. German Bank. 87 Md. :&02. 39 A 865; Thomson v. Gortner. 72 Md. 474. 21 A 371: Delashmutt v. Thomas, 45 Md. 140; Myers v. Forbes. 24 Md. 598; Pennsylvania. etc .. Steam Nav. Co. v. Dandridge, 8 Gill .tc J. 248. 29 AmD 543.

    Mass.-Marble v. Standard 011 Co􂤥 169 Mass. 553, 48 NE 783.

    Mich.-Wagner v. Egleston. 4t S Mich 218, 13 NW 522; Leslie v. Smith, 32 Mich. 64; Fowler v. Hoffman, 31 Mich. 2 111; Peek v. Detroit Novelty Works, 29 Mich. 318.

    Mlss.--Garnett v. Klrkma.n. 83 Miss. 389.

    Mo.-Browning v. North 'Missouri Cent. R. Co., 188 SW 143; Wesson v. Horner, 26 Mo. 81; Burks v. Starn. 65 Mo. A. 456; Jones v. Durgin. 16 Mo. A. 370.

    Mont.-Prlce v. Stlpek, 39 Mont. 426 , 104 P 196; Burton v. Kl pp, 30 Mont. 276, 76 P 663; Ahlstrom v. Fitzpatrick. 17 Mont. 296, U P 757.

    Nebr.-Omaha. L. & T . Co. v. Goodman. 62 Nebr. 197. 86 NW 108%.

    N. J.-Buckley v. Wood, 67 N. J. L. 6 8 3 􀗋 52 A 664: Culver v. Culver. 39 N . .J, L. 574; Rue v. Rue, %1 N. J . L. 369; Case v. Lennlngton, S N. J. L. 853.

    N. Y.--Canet v. Smith, 173 App. Dlv. 241, 159 NYS 69S: Bluemner "· Garvin, 120 Alp. Dlv. 29, 34, 104 l'lriS 1009 [cit Cyc ; Flaherty v. Cary, 62 App. Dlv. 11 , 70 NYS 961 (aft 174 N. Y. 650 mem, 67 NE 1082 memJ: Van Schalck v. Van Buren. 70 Hun 675. 24 NYS 306; Snow v. Rusaell Coe Fertilizer Co., 58 Hun 134. 11 NYS 492; Barnes v. Brown. 11 Hun I 315 [mod on other groun4s 80 N. Y. 62]: Cauet v. Smith. 86 Misc. tt. 149 1 :NYS 101 [ rev on other grounds 1 6 4 pp. Dlv. 931 mem, 149 NYS 1071 mem] ; Durk in v. New York, 49 l'r!lsc. 1 H. 9 6 NYS 1 0 5 9 ; liau rman v. B i n zen, 16 Z.. "YS 342 [atl' 65 Hun 39, 19 XYS 627 ( a tr 1 4 2 N. Y. 6 3 6 m em, 37 . E 566 mem)]; Abe e l v. Radclt1'1', 1 3 Johns. 29 7 , 7 AmD 3 7 7 .

    N. C.-Wooten v . S . A . B i ggs Drug Co .. 169 N. C. 64. 8 5 SE H O ; A m e r - 1 S t E.> e l , e t c . , Co. v . Copeland , 1 59 , ·. C. 5 5 6, 7 5 SE 1 0 0 2 ; Elks v. North ta.te L . 1ns. C o . , 169 N. C. 6 1 9 , 7 5 E 808; Rhyne v. Rhyne, 151 N. C. t DO. 6 6 SE 3 4 8 ; Thomas v. Th omas \' llle Shooting Club, 123 N. C. 285, 31 SE 654; Pace v. Pace, 73 N. C. 1 1 .

    N.D.-Great Northern R. Co. v. Sheyenne Tel. Co., 27 N. D. 2 6 6 , 1 4 6 • ;-w 1 0 6 2.

    Oh.--8tate v. Bau m , 6 Oh. 3 8 3 ; Evans v. Pec k - Hammond Co., 2 5 O h . Ct r. Ct. 1 6 1 .

    Okl-Rogers v. Wh i te Sewing :l.la eh. Co., 157 P 1 0 4 4 ; Arkan-.as Valley Town, etc., Co. v. Atchison , etc., R. Co., 151 P 1 0 2 8 ; Cen tra l .Uortg. Co. v. M i c h i gan State L. I n s. Co •• 43 Okl. 3 3 . 3 8 , 1 4 3 P 1 7 6 [ ci t Cyc ] ; Kramer v. E w i ng, 1 0 Okl. 3 5 7 , 6 1 p 1 0 11 -4 .

    Or.-Holtz v . Olds, 164 P 5 83 ; Gaines v. Vandecar, 59 Or. 187< 193, 1 1 5 P 7 2 1 , 1 1 2 2 [cit Cyc] ; American Bridge, etc., Co. v. Bu1le n Bridge o . • 29 Or. 649, 46 P 1 3 8 .

    Pa.-Bri ggs v . Morri s, 2 4 4 Pa. 1 3 9, ' A 5 3 2 ; P u rve's Est . . 196 Pa. 4 3 8 . fl A 3 6 9 ; W a l l ' s App . , 1 1 1 Pa. 4 6 0 , 5 %20, 56 AmR 2 8 8 ; Eldred v. Hul e.tt, 18 Pa.. 1 6 ; G raham v. Graham, Pa 4 7 5 ; Oyer v . Applegate, 6 7 Pa. Super. 89 ; Mamaux v. Union Cas u alty Ins. Co., 2 4 Pa. Dist. 8 2 8 ; Pllpn v. Bachman, 2 2 P a. Diet. 8 3 9 ; 􀂎 nverse's Est . . 2 1 P a . Di s t . 5 7 1 .

    Philippine.-Tuazon v . Goduco, 2 3 ni1Jppine 3 42.

    Porto Rlco.-B i gelow v. Porto R i co lallters C o . , 7 Porto R i co Fed . 4 6 3 .

    Utah.-Reed v . Lowe, 8 Utah 3 9 , P H O.

    Va.-Belmont v. McAllister, 1 1 6 V %86, 81 S E 8 1 .

    Wash.-Ryan v . Hanna, 89 Wash. J7 , 15-4 P 4 3 6 ; Weldon v. Degan, 8 6 a.sb. 442, 1 5 0 P 1 1 8 4 ; Bar to n v . · pinning, 8 Wash. 458, 36 P 439.

    Wis.-Wolfram v. Schoepke, 123 Wis. .19, 1 0 0 NW 1 0 5 4 , 3 AnnCas 3 9 8 ; Leonard v . Carter, 1 6 W i s . 6 0 7 ; Cole T . Cl&rk., 3 Pi n n. 3 0 3 , 4 Chand!. 2 9 .

    Eng.-I)a-.-. 1es v. Davies, 3 6 Ch. D. Gia1l;h inIng vre. LCylnanrk, e,2 B3.6 &C hA.d . D2.3 23, 4282; F:cL JU􂤡 109 Reprint 1 1 3 0 ; Coles v . !liilme, 11 B. & C. 6 6 8, 1 6 ECL 2 8 2, 10& Reprint 1 1 5 3 ; Whi te v. Blu e t t , ZS. L. .1. Exch. 3 6 ; Taylor v . Brewer, 1. II. It S. 290, 105 Repri n t 1 0 8!· Ryan • 'Thomas. 55 Sol. J. 3 64 ; F . ges v. CQUtlr. 3 Stark. 1 3 9 , 3 ECL 6 2 7 .

    Alta.-Trust, etc. , C o . v. R . J. WhllJay Co .. 7 Alta. L. 3 3 P, 16 Dom 􂤠 J. t 5, 27 Wes t L R 6 8 9 , 6 Wes t 􀋂J' U ; Watson v. Jam ieson, 3 lJti:, I... ZIO ; Hayes v. Day, 1 Alta. [.. H I

    B. C.-Fl etcher v. H olden, 1 9 B . C. $ 1; Fre'Wen v. Hays, 1 6 WestLR 253.

    Man.--Ca.nada. Law Book Co. v. Butterworth, 23 Man. 352; Pea r so n T. O"Brien. !!2 M an. 175, 4 DomLR HI: •. lmpkln , .. Pa ton, 18 Man. 1 3 2 , J WestLR 1 1 1 .

    See Michigan Condensed Milk Co. v. Kenneweg Co., 30 App. (D.C.) 491.

    "There is no more settled rule of law, in actions based upon contracts, than, that if the contract sued upon, whether written or verbal, is vague or uncertain in its terms, no action will lie upon lt." De Bearn v. De Bearn, 126 Md. 629, 633, 96 A 476.

    [a] Particular agreements void for uncertainty-
    1. An agreeme n t to renew a. lease a t t h e end of t h e term, without say i n g for what t i m e o r at w h a t r e n t . Baurman v . B i n z e n , 1 6 N Y S 3 4 2 [atr 65 H u n 3 9 , 1 9 . NYS 6 2 7 (a.1'1' 1 4 2 N. Y. 6 3 6 mem, 3 7 N E 5 6 6 mem ) J ; Abeel v . Rad c l i tr, 1 3 Johns. ( N. Y. ) 2 9 7, 7 AmD 3 7 7 .
    2. A promise by the purchaser o f a h o rse t h a t , "if the horse w as l u c ky . [ he ] wou ld give th e defendant 6 1 . more, o r the buy i n g. of a n o ther horse." G u th l n g v . Lynn, 2 B. & Ad. 2 3 2, 2 2 ECL 1 04, 1 0 9 Rep ri n t 1 1 3 0 .
    3. A promise by a man to a woman to give her one hundred acres of land if she would live with him until his marriage. Sherman v. Kitsmiller, 17 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 46.
    4. A promise by a man to leave a girl at his death a "child's part" of his estate. Woods v. E v a n s . 113 Ill. 186, 66 A m R 409.
    5. A promise t o ma ke a -chi l d " h i s h e i r. " Wallace v. Rappel ye. 1 0 3 I l l . 2 2 9 .
    6. A promi se t o give a ch i l d a "fu II share" of p roperty. Adams v. Adam s, 26 Al a. 2 7 2 .
    7. A man ' s pro m i s e to a w o man, i f she would l i v e w i t h h i m as h i s w i fe. to give her a good h o m e as l o n g as he l i ved and to provide for h e r at h i s death. Wall's App., 1 1 1 Pa . 460, 5 A 2 2 0 , ' 5 6 AmR 2 8 8.
    8. Promises to "aid and ass i s t" ano ther to get an ord er o f court. Case v. Lenn i n g t o n , 3 N . J. L. 8 5 3.
    9. A p ro mise to use one's "best etror t s" to ad vance t h e value o f land. Barto n v . Sp in n i ng , 8 Wash. 4 5 8 , 3 6 P 4 3 9 .
    10. A promise to pay a n o t e " i f th e c o rn market sh ou l d advance sufficien t l y to justify" i t. Thomson v. Gartner, 73 Md. 4 74, 2 1 A 3 7 1 .
    11. A p r o m i s e t o assi s t persons by In dorsi n g their pa per and advanci n g the m th e money to carry on the merca n tile bus i n es s advan tageously. Erw i n v. E r w i n , 2 5 Ala. 2 3 6 .
    12. A pro m i se to carry on a busi ness as lon g as I t shou ld be profitab le. Pulliam v. Schimpf, 1 09 Ala. 1 7 9, 1 9 S 4 2 8 .
    13. A promi se to work a m i n e as l o n g as It could be made to pay. Dav i e v . Lu mberman' s Min. Co . , 9 2 M ich. 4 9 1 , 5 3 NW 6 􀁡 5 . 2 4 LRA 367.
    14. A n agreement that a contrac t cou ld be canceled for "go o d cause." C u m m e r v . B u t ts, 4 0 M i ch. 3 2 2 . 2 9 AmR 5 3 !1 .
    15. Promises to "pay more If he cou ld atrord it." Clark v . Pea rson, 63 Ill. A . 3 1 0 .
    16. A prom ise to make "advan ces" w i t h o u t specifyI n g any s u m . Gatl'ord v. Proskauer, 5 9 A l a. 2 6 4 .
    17. A pro m i se to tal<.a a hou s e "if put i n to th orou gh re pair, and the d Baw i n g- r o o m s 'hand s o m e l y decora t ed accord i ng to the pres en t s t y l e . ' " Taylor v. Po r t i ngton, 7 De G. M. & G. 328, 56 EngCh 328, 4 4 R e p r i n t 128.
    18. A prom i se to give the preference in ren t i n g proper ty as l o n g as I t s h o u l d be ren ted as a store. Delas h m u t t v. Thomas, 4 5 Md. 1 4 0 .
    19. A promise to s e l l land "re<;erving t h e necessary land for mak i n g a rai l w a y . ' ' Pearce v. Wat ts. L. R . 20 Eq. 4 􀀧 2.
    20. A pro m i s E" to re nt land to a no ther o n his payi ng t h e s a m e rent that t h e promisor might be able to obtain from other pa r t i es. G e l s to n v . Sigmu nd, 27 M d . 3 3 4 .
    21. A prom i s e to s e l l o i l on s u ch reasonable t e r m s as to •'m a b i e t h e purchaser t o c o m pete s u c c 􀄿 s fu l l y w i th o ther part i e 􁖃 sel l i n g in t h e s a m e terri to ry. Marbl e v. Standard O i l C o . , 1 6 9 Mass. 5 5 3, 4 8 NE 7 8 3 .
    22. A promise to pay a party for ice t o be d e l i vered a t a p rl ee which w i l l "atl'ord the co m p a n y a net pro fi t not to e:occeed one d o l lar ppr to n . " Buckmaster v . C' o n su mer' s Ice Co., 5 Daly (N. D; lti I 3 1 7 .
    23. A promise to red uce re nt. Smi th v. Ankrlm. I'3 Berg. & R. (Pa. ) 39.
    24. A p r o m i se that, if p lai n tiff would erect and mai n ta i n a firstclass hotel for t rave l e r s , and would accommodate therein emp l o yees of th e company at one -hal f the rates charged other customers. the rail!. road company, by the patronage of its road, would ma i ntai n and su pport the ho tel. Hart v . Georgia R. Co., 1 0 1 Ga. 188, 28 SE 6 3 7 .
    25. Excha n ge o f a s tock of good s for o th er property, an i n ven tory o f the good s to be · made--the u ndama ged goods to be reckoned a t cost prll:e, 'and "the damaged goods a t prices agreed upon. Dayton v. S t o n e, 1 1 1 M i c h . 1 9 6 , 6 9 N W 6 1 5 .
    26. The promise of a corporate stockholder to an officer of the corporation that, if any profit is made out of the business of the company, he will divide it on a very liberal basis with the officer. Butler v. Kemmerer, 218 Pa. 2'4 2 , 67 A 3 3 2 .
    27. A parol promise to gran t a speci al rate for the trans­ portatio n of pas sen ge rs between 􁖂 ci ty and a subu rb. Aru n del Realty Co. v . Maryland E lectric R . Co., 1 1 6 Md. 2 7 , 81 A 7 8 7 , 3 8 LRANS 16?.
    28. A co n t ract f o r t h e pu rchase o f water rights. Pasco Reclamation Co. v. Cox, 70 Wash. 5 4 9, 1 2 7 P 1 07.
    29. A con tract for t h e sale of lan d , prov idi n g that there wo uld be no forfeiture for nonpayment of the price for five y ears I f the purchasers remained on t h e p rem ises and c u l t i v a ted it and set out an ap ple o rchard, an d if at the end of such hme they had not paid for the land, there wou l d be an abun d a nce of f r u i t gro w i ng thereon to pay for the same. S pokane Canal Co. v. Cotrma n, 61 Wash. 3 6 7, 1 1 2 P 383 .
    30. An agreemen t be tween the p romoters of a corpo ration and a third · person , which s t i p u l ates that the promo te rs w i l l i ncrease their h o l di n gs of corporate stpck, and will devo te their time to the managemen t of t he busi ness at a specified salary, and that the third person w i l l pay for a s pecified rwmber o f shares of s t ock, and shal l have the o p t i o n to take part i n the managemen t of t h e corpora tion on the sawe term-s as the p r o m o t e r s . Hamp ton v . Ru· channn, 5 1 Was h . 1 5 6 , 9 8 P 374.
    31. A promise to give to a cement dealer a lower rate per barrel than to other dealers, i n considera t i o n of h i s givi n g the manu fac t u re r ' s brand the preference i n . h i s sales and "pu s h I n g" I t, n o l i m i t bei n g placed o n t h e amount tha t t h e d ea l e r may o rder or sell. Jac k s o n v. Alpha Portland Cemen t Co. , 1 2 2 A pp. Dlv. 3 4 5, 1 Q 6 N Y S 1 0 5 2 .
    32. A con tract be twee n physicians i n partnership that one shall make application for a hospital course, and if he gets an appointment, sh all release their entire practice to the other, but, if he does not get the appointment, "or the field is not larger then than now," that he shall locate elsewhere, unless a new contract is made. Teague v. Schaub, 1 3 3 N. C. 458, 4 6 1 . 45 S E 7 6 2 .

    [bl Where an agreement between parties is confirmed by act of parliament, every clause in it has statutory validity, and no objection can be taken to any provision in it on the ground that it is void for remoteness or uncertainty. Manchester Ship Canal Co. v. Manchester Racecourse Co., [1901] 2 Ch. 37.
  2. ↑ D. C.- Rankin v. Collins, 40 App. 21.

    Ga.-Prlor v. Hilton, etc., Co., 141 Ga. 117. 80 SE 669.

    Hawaii.-Foster v. Honolu1u Constr., · etc., Co .. 21 Hawaii 689, 694 (cit Cycl.

    Mo.- Gale v. Kennerd, 182 Mo. A. 498, 600, 165 SW 842 [cit Cyc): North- rup v. Colter, 1 60 . Mo. A. 639, 131 BW 364: Gray v. Toledo, etc., R. Co.. 1.43 Mo. A. 261, 128 SW 227.

    Nebr.-Roberts v. Cox. 91 Nebr. 663. 136 NW 831.

    N. Y.-Melxel v. Melxel, 161 App. Dlv. 618, 1 46 NYS 687: Bluemner v. Garvin, 1%0 App. Dh·. 29. 34, 1 0 4 NYS 10(19 [cit Cyc].

    N. C.-Elks v. North State L. Inl'l. Co .. 169 N. C. 619, 76 SE 808.

    Alta.-Trusts, etc .• Co. v. R. J. Whltlaw Co .• 7 Alta. L. 330. 16 Dom LR 185, 27 We!'lti.R 589, 6 WestWkly 42.

    B. C.-Kerr v. Cotton, 2 B. C. 24fl.

    Man.--Canada Law Book Co. v . Butterworth. 23 Man. 352: Pearson v. O'Brien, 22 Man. 175. 4 DomLR 413. See 'also cases In preceding note.

    [a] Where an offer and acceptance are relied on to make a contract, the offer must be one which is intended of itself to create legal relations on acceptance; and the offer intended to create legal relations must be so complete that on acceptance an agreement containing all the necessary terms is formed. Elks v. North State L. Ins. Co., 159 N. C. 619. 76 SE 808.
  3. ↑ Ingram-Day Lumber Co. v. Rodgers, 105 Miss. 244. 62 S 230, 4 LRANS 435, AnnCasl916E 174.

    [a] Particular employment contracts held invalid.-
    1. A contract between an injured employee and an officer of the employer that the employer would give him certain employment in the capacity in which he had been working at the time of the injury although he had previously worked as a heater for a much larger sum until the employee was able to go to heating again at full wages, and also that whether the employee was fit for light employment or for full work as a heater was to be determined by a physician named. Smith v. Crum Lynne Iron, etc., Co., 208 Pa. 462, 57 A 9 53.
    2. A promise to employ an actor from a certain day and "as long as the same may be mutually agreed upon." Mcintosh v. Miner, 87 App. Div. 483, 484, 55 NYS 1014.
    3. An agreement to perform certain services for such remuneration as should be deemed right. Parker v. Ibbetson, 4 C.B.N.S. 346, 140 Reprint 1118; Roberts v. Smith. 4 H. & N. 316, 157 Reprint 861 ; Taylor v. Brewer. 1 M.&S. 290, 105 Reprint 1 08.
    4. A promise to pay "good wages." Fairplay School Tp. v. O'Neal, 127 Ind. 96, 26 NE 686.
    5. An agreement to give plaintiff a life job as compensation for injuries, not fixing any definite term or wages. Bird v. J. L. Prescott Co., 89 N. J. L. 691, 99 A 380.
    6. A contract to give plaintiff a job for life, or so long as defendant remained in business. Ingram-Day Lumber Co. v. Rodgers, 106 Miss. 244, 62 S 230. 48 LRANS 436. Ann Cas1916E 174.
    7. A verbal contract as to services to be performed in connection with the sale of bonds, falling to disclose the extent of the services and when payment t herefor was t o be made. Briggs v. Morris, 2H Pa. 139, 90 A 632.
    8. A contract employing plaintiff to cut timber, but not definitely describing the timber or stating when the cutting was to be done, or where it was to be delivered, or the number of teams and carts to be furnished by defendant, or when. Prior v. Hilton. etc., Co .. 141 Ga. 117, 80 SE 659.
  4. ↑ See Specific performance
  5. ↑ U.S.-Worthlngton v. Beeman. 91 Fed.. 232, 33 CCA 47 6.

    Ala.- Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. South, etc., Alabama R. Co., 84 Ala 570. But see Red Star Coal Co. v. Graves, 2 Ala. A. 321, 56 S 596 (holding that the test of the sufficiency of a contract describing land is whether specific performance can be had according to its terms).

    Mich.-Lanford v. U.S. WoodenWare Co., 127 Mich. 61 4. 86 NW 1033; Long v. Battle Creek. 39 Mich. 323, 33 AmR 384.

    Mo.- Huse, etc., Ice, etc. Co. v. Helnze, 102 Mo. 245, 14 SW 756; Foster v. Kimmons, 54 Mo. 488; Belch v. Miller, 32 Mo. A. 387.

    Or.-Oiympla Bottling Works v. Olympia Brewing Co., 56 Or. 87, 107 p 969.

    Wis.-Walsh v. Myers, 92 Wis. construc397, 66 NW 250.

    See also Specific performance.
  6. ↑ Gould v. Gunn, 161 Iowa 156, 140 NW 380.
  7. ↑ Harms v. Stern, 222 Fed. 581 [rev on other grounds 229 Fed. 42, 145 CCA 2].

    Necessity that damages be reasonably ascertainable see Liquidated damages.
  8. ↑ Dugger v. Kelty, 168 Iowa 129, 150 NW 27.
  9. ↑ Ill.--Chumasero v. G ilbert. 24 Il l. 293.

    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).

    Mlnn.--Shepard v. Carpenter, 54 Minn. 153. 66 NW 906.

    N. Y.-Rollin v. Pickett, 2 Hi ll 65!.

    N. C.-Rhyne v. Rhyne, 1 61 N. C. 400. 66 SE 348.

    Eng.-Fyfe v. Arbuthnot, 1 De G. & J. 406, 58 EngCh 815, U Reprint 780. 15. N. R.
  10. ↑ Webster v. Ela, 5 N. R. 540; Marshall v. White's Creek Tp. Co., 7 Coldw. (Tenn.) 252.
  11. ↑ 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).
  12. ↑ Mercer Electric Mfg. Co., v. Connecticut Electric Mfg. Co., 87 Conn. 691, 89 A 909.
  13. ↑ Sloss-Shemeld Steel, etc., Co. v. Payne, 186 Ala. 341, 64 S 617.
  14. ↑ 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.

    [a] Illustrations.--
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    Practical construction of contract see Construction and Operation § Practical Construction or Construction by Parties.
  15. ↑ Fraker v. Hyde, 136 App. Dt 64. 11 9 NYS 879.
  16. ↑ Briggs v. Morris, 244 Pa. 139, 90 A 532.
  17. ↑ Straus v. Yeager, 48 Ind. A 448, 93 NE 877.
  18. ↑ 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).
Retrieved from "https://www.wikilawschool.net/w/index.php?title=Contracts/Uncertainty&oldid=40286"