It is by no means uncommon for those who offer or agree to employ others, or to buy goods, to make no statement as to the wages or price to be paid. The law invokes here (as likewise where an agreement is indefinite as to time) the standard of reasonableness. Accordingly the fair value of the services or property is recoverable.47 Sometimes, however, the terms of a promise exclude the supposition that the reasonable or market price was intended. In such a case no contract can arise.48 Thus a promise may attempt to define the price but do so too indefinitely for enforcement, as by such words as "Not exceeding $300 a week," 49 the cost, plus a "nice" profit,50 a division of profits "upon a very liberal basis," 51 "a reasonable amount from the profits," 52 "a portion " of the promisor's estate,53 "a part of the money,"54 "to reduce the rent,"55 "a due allowance,"56 "money to enable them to carry on their business," 57 "good wages," 58 " the average price." 59 These have been held too indefinite for enforcement. But a promise that another shall be "well paid " may be enforced as a promise for reasonable compensation.60 And a price qualified by a guarantee against decline of market prices of competitive goods prior to the time for performance of the contract is sufficiently definite.61 And a promise for services that a testator would leave the promisee "full and plenty after he was gone so that she need not work " was enforced as an obligation to leave an amount sufficient to buy an annuity that would support the promisee in the mode of life to which she had been accustomed.62 A promise to bequeath "as much as to any relation on earth " was held too indefinite by the same court;63 but it would seem wrongly for a standard is furnished by the terms of the promise which can be applied with exactness.64 Even a promise to an injured workman that in case he failed to recover his health within six weeks the employer would "make it right" was held not too indefinite.65

46 Ablstrom v. Fitipatrick, 17 Mont. 295, 42 Pac 757.

47 Illustrations of this rule in agreements for services may be found in the following, among other decisions: Miller v. Ballerino, 135 Cal. 566, 67 Pac 1046, 68 Pac. 600; Clark v. Clark, 46 Conn. 586; Rowell v. Ross, 87 Conn. 157, 87 Atl. 355; Wells v. Haynes, 101 Ga. 841, 62 S. E. 968; Lockwood v. Bobbins, 125 Ind. 398, 25 N. E. 455; Clark v. Ellsworth, 104 la. 442,73 N. W. 1023; Norwood v. Lathrop, 178 Mass. 208, 59 N. E. 650; Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434,56 N. W. 68, 21 L R. A. 418, 40 Am. St. Rep. 349; Swift v. Johnson, 175 Mo, App. 660, 158 S. W. 96; Randall v. Packard, 142 N. Y. 47, 36 N. E. 823; Perkins v Has-brouck, 155 Pa. 494, 26 Atl. 695; Standard Printing Co. v. Publishing Co., 87 Wis. 127, 68 N. W. 238; Mo-Namars v. McNamara, 108 Wis. 613, 84 N. W. 901.

Illustrations of the rule in regard to the price of goods will be found in the following decisions'. Acebal v. Levy,

10 Bug. 376; Hoadly v M'Laine, 10 Bing. 482; Valpy v. Gibson, 4 C. B. 837, 864; Shealy v. Edwards, 73 Ala. 175, 49 Am. Rep. 43; Greene v. Lewis, 85 Ala. 221, 4 So. 740, 7 Am. St. Rep. 42; McEwen v. Morey, 60 111. 32; Jenkins v. Richardson, 6 J. J. Marsh. 441, 22 Am. Dec. 82; Taft v. Travis, 136 Mass. 95; Lovejoyn. Michels,.88 Mich. 15, 49 N. W. 901, 13 L. R. A. 770; Stout v. Caruthersville Hardware Co., 131 Mo. App. 520,110 S. W. 619; Livingston v. Wagner, 23 Nev. 53,42 Pac. 290.

48Van Neeuwen v. Swanson, 121 Minn. 250, 141 N. W. 112.

49United Press v. New York Press Co., 164 N. Y. 406, 58 N. E. 527, 53 L. R. A. 288.

50 Gaines v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 163 Ky. 716, 174 S. W. 482.

51 Butler v. Kemmerer, 218 Pa. 242, 67 Atl. 332. See also Georgia. Cane Products Co. v. Com Products Refining Co., 141 Ga. 40, 80 S. E. 318.

52 Canet v. Smith, 86 N. Y. Misc. 99, 149 N. Y. S. 101.