If the contract imposes some definite obligation upon each party, it has consideration, even though some discretion as to quantity, time, etc., may be given to one party.1 A contract between A and B, which requires each party to perform and merely leaves certain details within the discretion of such party, such as the time of such performance,2 or the quantity to be furnished within certain specified limits,3 is supported by sufficient consideration. A contract whereby the vendor may determine the grade to be delivered, with a corresponding reduction in price for inferior grades;4 a contract to deliver "from four hundred thousand to five hundred thousand bushels," since the purchaser is bound to take at least four hundred thousand bushels;5 a contract allowing the purchaser to fix the time for delivery within specified limits;6 a contract to supply certain advertising matter, such as the agency might in its judgment think best;7 and a contract by which A agrees to furnish to B a certain number of logs annually, and B reserves the right to buy logs from others whenever A is unable to furnish them,8 are all valid. A building contract is valid though it allows the owner to make deductions for work of certain kinds, which the owner is free to employ other persons to do, and though the owner may make such deductions as entirely to eliminate the work which such contractor has agreed to do.9 However, a contract for the shipment of goods which gives to the transportation company the right to transport the goods when it pleases, as long as they are transported within the year, has been held to be invalid.10

W. Va. 736, 3 L. R. A. 94, 8 S. E. 743; Barrett v. McAllister, 33 W. Va. 738, 11 S. E. 220. By such acceptance the want of mutuality is eliminated.

18See Sec. 571.

19Livesley v. Heise, 45 Or. 148, 76 Pac. 952.

See Sec. 574.

20Neola Elevator Co. v. Kruckman (la.), 171 N. W. 743.

21Neola Elevator Co. v. Kruckman (la.), 171 N. W. 743.

1McCaw Mfg. Co. v. Felder, 115 Ga. 408, 41 S. E. 664. See Sec. 84 et seq.

2Cold Blast Transportation Co. v. Nut Co., 114 Fed. 77, 57 L. R. A. 696,

52 C. C. A. 25. (This case cites as precedent cases which do not involve this proposition.)

1Burnell v. Bradbury, 67 Kan. 762, 74 Pac. 279; Smokeless Fuel Co. v. Seaton, 105 Va. 170, 52 S. E. 829.

2Burnell v. Bradbury, 67 Kan. 762, 74 Pac. 279; Sandeen v. Russell Lumber Co., 45 Mont. 273, 122 Pac. 913.

3 Feuchtwanger v. Manitowoc Malting Co., 187 Fed. 713, 109 C. C. A. 461 [reversing, Manitowoc Malting Co. v. Feuchtwanger, 169 Fed. 983]; Smokeless Fuel Co. v. Seaton, 105 Va. 170, 52 S. E. 829.