Contracts/Uncertainty

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Jump to navigationJump to search

Contracts Treatise
Table of Contents
Contracts Outline
Introduction and Definitions
Introduction
Definitions
Elements
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
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[edit | edit source]

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[edit | edit source]

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[edit | edit source]

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[edit | edit source]

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[edit | edit source]

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[edit | edit source]

If, with the aid of the usual tests and principles of construction,[19] the court is able to ascertain and to enforce the intention of the parties, their agreement will not be held uncertain.[20] So an agreement drawn up by illiterate persons will not be held uncertain, if it is possible for the court to ascertain their meaning.[21] While a contract, incomplete on its face, may thereby be ambiguous, it is not necessarily void.[22] Absolute certainty is not required.

That is certain which may be rendered certain, according to the maxim, Id certum est quod certum reddi potest.[23] A promise not in itself certain may be rendered certain by a reference to something certain.[24] 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.[25]

Time for performance or termination[edit | edit source]

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.[26] Nor is a contract fatally indefinite merely because it does not specify a time presently definite for its termination.[27] Further, a contract is not invalid because not performable until after the promisor's death.[28]

Partial uncertainty[edit | edit source]

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.[29] Further, the contract is not void because performance is, as to particular details, left subject to the subsequent agreement of the parties.[30]

References[edit | edit source]

  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).
  19. See Construction and Operation
  20. 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.

    Ala.-Troy Fertilizer Co. v. Lo ga n, 6 Ala.. 619, 12 S 712.

    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.

    Fla.-Booske v. Gulf Ice Co., 2 4 l&.. 550. 5 s 247.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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,

    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.

    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.

    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. '

    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.

    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.

    Nebr.--Kaufman v. U. S. National -- 31 Nebr. 661, 48 NW 738.

    Nev.- Hyman v. Kelly, 1 Nev. l79.

    N.M.-Bates v. Ch i l de rs, 4 N. M. . zo p 14j4.

    N.Y.- Fabbri v. Meyer, 169 App. 681, 165 NYS 502; Shubert v. Angeles, 80 App. Dlv. 625, 80 NYS

    Or.- Eugene v. Chambers' Power Co., Or. 152. 159 P 576 ; Patterson v. Chambers Power Co., 81 Or. ... UJ! P 568.

    Pa.- In re Compton, 30 Pa. Super.

    Tenn.- Levering v. Memphis, 7 ._pisr., :iii. T .

    Tex.- Hales v. Peters. ( C iv. A.) • - 3 6; Lucia v. Adams, 36 Tex. 􁕼. 46.4, 82c . s w 335.

    Utah.-Morgan v. Child, 41 Utah .􂤓 1: p 621. .

    Va.- Chichester v. Vass, 1 Munf,

    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).

    Wis.-Sulzer v. Moye·r, 161 Wis. 435, 154 NW 700; McCall Co. v. l"ks, 107 Wis. 232, 83 NW 300.

    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.

    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.

    [a] Particular agreements held sufficient.--

    1. 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 .
    2. 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.
    3. 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 .
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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 .
    8. A prom ise to give a person "stead y and permanent employment." Pe nnsylvania Co. v. Dolan, 6 Ind. A. 109, 32 NE 802.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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 .
    13. 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.
    14. A promIse to erect a "good steam sawml11." Fra ley v. Bentley. 1 Oak. 25. 46 NW 506.
    15. A pr o m ise fljge'f:l!'i! a "good bridge. " Lo n g v. Battle Creek. 39 Mich. 323, 33 AthR 384.
    16. 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 .
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. A gift of pro per ty for care and services. Banta v. Banta, 84 J\Pp. Div. 138, 82 NYS 113.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. 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).
    28. 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.
    29. 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.
    30. 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.
    31. 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.
    32. 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.
    33. 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.
    34. 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.
  21. Atwood v. Cobb, 16 Pick. (Mass.), 227, 26 AmD 657.
  22. Wisconsin Farm Co. v. Watson, 160 Wis. 638, 152 NW 449.
  23. 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 .

    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.

    Ark.-McConnell v. Arka nsas Brick, etc., Co., 70 Ark. 568, 69 SW 5 5 9 .

    Fla. -Hinote v. Brigman, • 4 Fla. 5 8 9 , 33 S 3 0 3 .

    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 .

    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.

    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.

    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 .

    La .-Kent v. Davis Bros. Lumber Co .. 1 2 2 La. 1 0 4 8 , 48 s 4 5 1 .

    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 .

    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.

    Minn.-Klemlk v. Henricksen Jewelry Co., 1 2 8 Minn. 4 9 0, 1 5 1 NW 2 0 3.

    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 .

    Nebr.-Woods v. Hart, 5 0 Nebr. 4 9 7 , 7 0 NW 5 3 .

    N. H .-Wi lls v. Cutler, 61 N. H. 405.

    N. J .-Pa rke r v. Pettit. 4 3 N. J. L. 5 1 2.

    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.

    N. C.-Carpenter v. Med ford. 99 N. C. 495. 6 SE 785, 6 AmSR 6 3 6.

    Oh.-Sterllng Wrench C o. v. Am- stu tz. 6 0 Oh. St. 4 84, 34 NE 79•.

    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. .

    Tenn.-Lee v. Cherry, 85 Tenn. 707 , 4 SW 8 3 5 . 4 AmSR 8 0 0.

    Tex.-Hales v. Peters, (Civ. A.> 1 62 SW 386; Shortrld v. Allen, 2 Tex. Clv. A. 193, 21 S 419.

    Vt.-Hakes v . Hotchkiss, 23 Vt . 231

    Wash.- Faucett v. Northern Clay Co., Wash. 382, 146 P 857.

    Wis.- Jelinek v. Baer, 153 Wis. 426, 141 NW 271.

    [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 .

    [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.

    Construction of written contracts see Construction and Operation § General Rules of Construction.
  24. 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.

    Conn.-Harnden v. Merwin, 1 4 Conn. 4 1 8, 8 A 6 7 0 ; Lockwood v. Jea- up. 9 Conn. 2 7 2 .

    Ill.-Whl te v. Hermann, 51 Ill. 2 4 3, 99 AmD 5 4 3 .

    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.

    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.

    N. J.-Parker v. Pettit. 4 3 N. J. L. 6 1 2

    N. Y.-Hayward v. Knickerbocker L. I ns. Co., 12 Daly 4 2 . Pa..-T hompson v. Stevena, 7 1 Pa 1 6 1 .

    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 .

    [ a ] Illustrations.-
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. A promlee to "the heirs of Jonathan Jewp," a livi ng peraon. Lockwood v. Jesup, 9 Co nn. %7%.
    9. 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 .
    10. 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 .
    11. An agreem􀆿t 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.
    12. 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 .
    13. 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.

    [b] Old English Cases.--
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
  25. Worthington v. Beeman, 91 Fed. 232, 33 CCA 476; Miller v. Kendig, 5 5 Iowa 1 7 4 , 7 NW &00.

    [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.

    [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.

    [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 Sufficiency of performance.
  26. 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).

    Construction of contracts as to time for performance see Construction and Operation § Time.
  27. 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.

    [a] Illustrations.-
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
  28. Butchel College v . Chamberloix, 3 Cal. A. 246, 84 P 1000.
  29. Lewis v. Creech, 162 Ky. 763, 173 SW 133; State v. Racine Sattley Co., (Tex. Civ. A.) 134 SW 400.

    [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.
  30. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. v. Herringer, 158 Ky. 267, 164 SW 948.

    [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.