As a promise may insufficiently specify the price to be paid, so the consideration for which the price is to be paid may be

53 Wall's Appeal, 111 Pa. 460, 5 Atl. 220, 56 Am. Rep. 288.

54 Bumey v. Jones, 140 Ga. 768, 79 S. E. 840.

55 Smith v. Ankrim, 13 8. & R. 39.

56In re Vince [1892), 2 Q. B. 478.

57Erwin v. Erwin, 25 Ala. 236.

58 Fairplay School Township v. O'Neal, 127 Ind. 95, 26 N. E. 686.

59 Des Moines Water Works Co. v. City of Des Moines, 95 Iowa, 348, 64 N. W. 269. Perhaps the court was too strict in this case.

60 Davis v. Teachout, 126 Mich. 135, 85 N. W. 475, 86 Am. St. Rep. 531. See also Levitt v. Miller, 64 Mo. App. 147.

61Solter v. Leedom & Worrell Co, 252 Fed. 133, 164 C. C. A. 245.

62 Thompson v. Stevens, 71 Pa. 161.

63 Graham v. Graham's Executors, 34 Pa. 475.

64So held in Sylvester's Case, Pop-ham, 148.

64Brennan v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 213 Mass. 366,100 N. E. 632. Hammond, J., said: "The jury might have found that under the circumstances the words make it right' meant that in the contingency named the plaintiff's intestate should have fair compensation paid to him in money for the injuries suffered by him. . . . The promise is not void on the ground left equally uncertain, and in such a case it is not usually possible to invoke the standard of reasonableness in order to give the promise sufficient definiteness to make it enforceable. Illustrations of such indefiniteness are as follows: A promise to give the buyer of a horse in a certain contingency "the buying of another horse;" 66 a promise to mine and deliver all "the outcrop" on certain lands.67 A reservation of "the necessary line for making a railway;" 68 a promise to sell as many cross-ties as it is possible to accumulate at a certain point for 12 months were held not sufficiently certain.69 Likewise a promise to erect buildings where the dimensions and plans are not specified,70 or which refers to plans and specifications as a part of a contract though no plans and specifications are attached.71 So, to erect "a permanent and first-class hotel" in consideration of a promise of a railway "to maintain and support the hotel by the patronage of its road;" 72 a promise to sell bank stock which did not specify whether the stock was to be part of the original issue or part of the stock as afterwards increased;73 or to buy all the ties of certain grades that the plaintiffs "may be able to purchase or make, up to 200,000 ties, commencing on this date and ending June 1, 1911"; 74 a promise to leave a business to the promisee if he should "attend to the business"; 75 or to give 100 acres of land "for services to be rendered," 76 or to give that it is too indefinite. Juries are constantly solving such problems." Cf. Bird v. J. L. Presoott Co., 89 N. J. L59L, 99Atl 380.

66Girthing. Lynn, 2 B. A Ad. 232.

67Sloss-Sheffield Co. v. Payne, 186 Ala. 341, 64 So. 617.

68 Pearce v. Watts, L. R, 20 Eq. 492.

69American Tie &. Timber Co. v. Naytor lumber Co., 190 Ala. 319, 67 So. 246.

70 Bissinger v. Prince, 117 Ala. 480, 23 So. 67. See also American, etc., Co. *. Bridge Co., 29 Ore. 549, 46 Pac. 138.

71 Ahnine p. King, 92 111. App. 276. But see Bernard Gloekler v. Carr, 72 W.Va.720,79S. E. 732. And a power reserved to vary plans and specifications will not invalidate an agreement if provision is made for determining the compensation for such variations United States v. McMullen, 222 U. S. 460, 56 L. Ed. 269, 32 S. Ct. 128.

72 Hart v. Georgia R. R. Co., 101 Ga. 188, 28 S. E. 637.

73 Feore v. Avent, 4 Ala. App. 551, 58 So. 727.

74Hudson v. Browning, 264 Mo. 58, 174 S. W. 393; but see Mitchell Taylor Tie Co. v. Whitaker, 158 Ky. 651, 166 8. W. 193; Ayer & Lord Tie Co. v. O'Bannon, 164 Ky. 34,174 S. W. 783.

75Purves' Estate, 196 Pa. 438, 46 Atl. 369.

76 Sherman v. Kitsmiller, 17 S. A R. 45. See also Briggs v. Morris, 244 Pa. 139, 90 Atl. 532.

a younger brother "a good education" and "to fit him for a lawyer";77 or "to give employment" without specifying its nature or compensation;78 or to give plaintiff a "job for life" or so long as the defendant remained in business;79 or to assist "to make a success of a business";80 are all too vague.81 On the other side of the line, a promise to execute a deed "with usual covenants,"82 or to sign a lease in the form "usual in the locality," 83 or to act as exclusive agent and use one's "best efforts ";84 or to subscribe for stock of a sufficient amount not in excess of $19,000, to provide a corporation with sufficient working funds and capital85 have been sustained.

Nor need a contract for the sale of goods define their quality. Merchantable goods of the kind promised are required to fulfil such a contract;86 and a promise of a piece of land to the plaintiff if he married the promisee's daughter and was "good and kind" to her, was enforced.87