The effect upon the validity of a contract of lack of certainty and definite-ness depends upon the relation which such covenant bears to the contract. If the covenants on both sides are uncertain and indefinite, the contract is unenforceable.1 If the covenant of one party which furnishes the entire consideration for the covenants of the adversary party is indefinite and uncertain, the contract can not be enforced while executory.2 If there are two or more covenants on one side and one of them is indefinite and uncertain, the entire contract will be rendered invalid if such covenant is a vital covenant whieh is one of the important terms of the contract.3 If the covenant which is indefinite and uncertain is one of minor importance, and no question arises as to the performance of such covenant, the invalidity of such covenant will not render invalid the remaining covenants of such contract.4 An uncertainty as to one provision of a contract with reference to improvements upon land does not defeat the rest of such contract, which consists of a lease and an option to buy such land, where the offeror is attempting to exercise such option.5 A promise to guarantee prices against decline, is not so uncertain as to render the entire contract invalid.6 A contract to provide for an illegitimate child so as to make it equal with promisor's other children, is not rendered invalid by an uncertain covenant to make it financially independent.7 A contract to furnish support in consideration of certain realty, is not rendered uncertain by the fact that the contract does not make it clear whether such title is to be transferred by deed or will.8

2 Ward v. Cotton Seed Products Co., 193 Ala. 101, 69 So. 514.

3 O'Terrall v. Van Camp, 124 Ind. 336, 24 X. E. 134.

1 See Sec. 95 et seq.

2 See Sec. 95 et seq.

3 See Sec. 95 et seq.

If A as consideration for B's promise, agrees to perform several acts and one of A's promises is so uncertain that it can not be enforced, the remaining covenants can support B's promise.

Alderton v. Williams, 139 Mich. 296, 102 N. W. 753.

4 Williams v. Williams, 128 Ark. 1, 193 S. W. 82; Swanston v Clark, 153 Cal. 300, 95 Ac. 1117.

5 Swanston v. Clark, 153 Cal. 300, 95 Ac. 1117.

6 In re Charles Wacker Co., 244 Fed. 483.

7 Lewis v. Creech's Administrator, 162 Ky. 763, 173 S. W. 133.

8 Williams v. Williams, 128 Ark. 1, 193 S. W. 82.