Editing Walker v. Keith

{{Infobox Case Brief
|court=Kentucky Court of Appeals
|citation=382 S.W.2d 198
|date=October 16, 1964
|subject=Contracts
|other_subjects=Property
|facts=*Walker = the landlord = plaintiff in the appeal court
*Keith = a lease-holder = the defendant = tenant
*Walker leased a small lot to Keith for 10 years at $100/month
*At the end of the 10 years, then tenant (Keith) had the option to renew the lease
*At the end of the 10 years, the monthly rent could jump
*At the end of the 10 years, the 2 parties couldn't agree on the monthly rent amount
*
|procedural_history=* Keith sued Walker to enforce the renewal option.
* The Kentucky trial court ruled in favor of Keith.
* Walker was ordered to rent his lot out to Keith at $125/month.
*
|issues=Is a contract to enter a [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/future-covenant future covenant] enforceable if it fails to specify all essential terms of the future covenant?
|holding=Commissioner Clay: A contract to form a future covenant must specify all essential terms of the future covenant, leaving nothing for further negotiations.
|reasons=* A lease is a contract.
* Rent is a material term of any lease.
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://casetext.com/case/walker-v-keith
|case_text_source=CaseText
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/walker-v-keith
|source_type=Video summary
|case_text_source=Quimbee
}}
|case_videos={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
|service=YouTube
|id=POneqw1bA2Y
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video
|service=YouTube
|id=wG56B4ubYhQ
}}
}}