The dislike of the courts for contracts in which the offer is to be accepted by the performance of an act, and their decided preference for contracts in which a promise is given for a promise,1 manifests itself in cases which involve the so-called doctrine of mutuality. The courts prefer to construe a contract as, in legal effect, calling for a counter-promise on the part of the promisee, and to treat his acceptance as equivalent in legal effect to making such promise, even if the words of the offer seem to contemplate acceptance by the performance of an act.2 A promise to sell, which fairly imports a corresponding obligation to buy, becomes binding on acceptance.3 A promise by A to buy all molasses required by A in his distillery during a certain time, through B as agent, paying to B a certain commission on purchases of molasses, whether made by B or by third persons, has sufficient consideration, since B is bound to furnish his services in effecting such purchases.4 A covenant by a purchaser to take the entire output of a certain mill, has sufficient consideration, since this implies a covenant by the vendor to furnish such entire output.5 An agreement by A to sell B's product exclusively, impliedly binds B to furnish such product if B is a party to such contract.6

30 Spokane Canal Co. v. Coffman, 61 Wash. 357, 112 Pac. 383.

31 Gaines v. Vandecar, 59 Or. 187, 115 Pac. 721 [rehearing denied, 115 Pac. 1122].

32Eustice v. Meytrott, 100 Ark. 510, 140 S. W. 590.

33 Sec. 95 et seq.

1See Sec. 189.

2 England. Y. B. 3 IIen. VI, 36 pl. 33.

United States. American Distributing Co. v. Hayes Wheel Co., 250 Fed. 109.

Illinois. Butterick Publishing Co. v. Whitcomb, 225 111. 605, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1004, 80 N. E. 247; Morris v. Taliaferro, 75 111. App. 182; Raphael v. Hartman, 87 111. App. 634.

A promise to do work7 for a certain price, if accepted by the adversary party, implies by fair construction a promise on his part to pay such specified price; and sufficient consideration therefore exists. A mutual agreement by which A promises to pay B for superintending certain work, imports a promise by B to superintend such work; and a consideration for A's promise exists.8 A promise by A to handle all the freight of a railway company at a certain point, implies a covenant by the railway company to furnish all its freight to A.9 A's promise to give to B the exclusive right to market B's designs in consideration of one-half of the "profits and revenues," implies a covenant on B's part to use reasonable efforts to sell such designs.10 A promise to give an exclusive agency to a real estate agent for a certain time and to pay a certain commission, which was accepted by such agent by his conduct in seeking purchasers, is supported by sufficient consideration, if by fair construction of the agreement the agent undertakes to serve so that he would be liable for a negligent loss of the sale.11 Sufficient consideration exists under a contract of employment by which the employe agrees to begin work at a certain time, and the "position here given" him, "is for a period of five years," and by which it is provided that the ability and willingness of the employe to perform was one of the essentials of the contract, since by fair implication the employe covenanted to render services for five years, and the employer covenanted to accept his services during that time.12 A promise by A to give employment to B for a certain time, which is accepted by B by beginning work, imports a promise by B to continue in such employment for such period.13 A contract by A to furnish the services of himself and of his wife for a certain compensation, is valid, since by fair implication the adversary party agrees to employ A and his wife.14 A promise by A to transfer stock to B, "in consideration of services rendered and to be rendered" by A, is enforceable if A, by acting under such promise, became liable to perform such services.15 An agreement by A to lease a room in a building which A is erecting, when it is completed, impliedly binds A to complete it, and hence is a consideration.16 An agreement in writing by A, "to execute a lease" to B, and "at signing of lease, six months' rent in advance is to be paid by" B, which was signed by A and B, impliedly binds B to sign the lease and to pay such rent.17 A contract which describes the land, specifies the consideration, and provides that the vendor shall convey by deed and that the vendee shall accept the deed, impliedly binds the vendee to pay the consideration specified.18

Indiana. Barth v. Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 175 Ind. 554, 93 N. E. 535 [modifying, 90 N. E. 488].

New Jersey. Flitcroft v. Allenhurst Club (N. J.), 61 Atl. 82.

New York. Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N. Y. 88, 118 N. E. 214 [reargument denied, Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N. Y. 643, 118 N. E. 1082].

Ohio. Stewart v. Herron, 77 0. S. 130, 82 N. E. 956.

Oregon. Deitz v. Stephenson, 51 Or. 596, 95 Pac. 803.

Washington. Parks v. Elmore, 59 Wash. 584, 110 Pac. 381.

3 Erie City Iron Works v. Thomas, 139 Fed. 995; Terry v. International Cotton Co., 136 Ga. 187, 70 S. E. 1100.

4Healy v. So. States Alcohol Mfg. Co., 125 La. Ann. 1038, 52 So. 150.

5 Thomas-Huycke-Martin Co. v. Gray, 94 Ark. 9, 125 S. W. 659.

6Ziehm v. Frank Steil Brewing Co., 131 Md. 582, 102 Atl. 1005.

7 England. Y. B. 3 Hen. VI, 36 pl. 33.

United States. American Distributing Co. v. Hayes Wheel Co., 250 Fed. 109.

Illinois. Butterick Publishing Co. v. Whitcomb, 225 III. 605, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1004, 80 N. E. 247.

New Jersey. Flitcroft v. Allenhurst Club (N. J.), 61 Atl. 82.

Oregon. Deitz v. Stephenson, 51 Or-596, 95 Pac. 803.

Wisconsin. Eastern Ry. Co. v. Tuteur, 127 Wis. 382, 105 N. W. 1067.

8Grossman v. Schenker, 206 N. Y. 466, 100 N. E. 39.

9Eastern Ry. v. Tuteur, 127 Wis. 382, 105 N. W. 1067.

10Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N; Y. 88,118 N. E. 214 [reargument denied, Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N. Y. 643, 118 N. E. 1082].