Omission to express certain terms in a contract does not render it indefinite or uncertain if such terms will be supplied by implication of the law. If the compensation is not fixed by the terms of the contract or by fair construction therefrom, the contract may nevertheless be enforced if a reasonable compensation was intended.1 A contract to pay a reasonable compensation for services is complete.2 Services rendered at the express request of the party for whom they are rendered,3 as by an attorney,4 or one who aids in the preparation of a case for trial,5 or an agent,6 or a physician,7 must be paid for by such party requesting such services although no price has been agreed upon. In such cases a reasonable compensation is allowed. So a promise that one shall be "well paid" if he will delay collecting a debt until the death of the debtor,8 or if he will sell realty for the promisor,9 or a contract to pay such amount as would be "right" or "satisfactory" as consideration for withdrawing an appeal from a decree probating a will, since the contract could be construed as one for the payment of a reasonable amount;10 a contract by which A, who was a chemist, agreed that B, who was a manufacturer, should use any formula which A might discover, and that B should pay to A "a fair and equitable share of the profits,"11 or a contract whereby an accident and indemnity insurance company agreed that if an injured employe would give a release for a certain amount of money, the insurance company would "make it right" if he did not get well in six weeks, since such promise is in legal effect a promise to pay reasonable compensation in excess of such sum if such injuries are not cured in such time,12 are each sufficiently definite. If, however, the contract

17 Spade v. Western Life Indemnity Co., 61 Or. 220, 117 Ac. 973, 122 Ac. 38.

18 Goldstine v. To1man, 157 Wis. 141, 147 N. W. 7.

19 Goldstine v. Tolman, 157 Wis. 141, 147 N. W. 7.

1 St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Gorman, 70 Kan. 643, 100 Ac. 647; Nyhart v. Pennington, 20 Mont. 158, 50 Ac. 413; Perkins v. Hasbrouck, 155 Pa. St. 494, 26 Atl. 695; Wojalin v. National Union Bank, 144 Wis. 646, 129 N. W. 1068.

2 Welmer v. Bauer, 160 Fed. 240.

3 California. Miller v. Ballerino, 135 Cal. 566, 67 Ac. 1046, 68 Ac. 600.

Connecticut Clark v. Clark, 46 Conn. 586; Rowell v. Ross, 87 Conn. 157, 87 Atl. 355.

Georgia. Wells v. Haynes, 101 Ga. 841, 28 S. E. 968.

Indiana. Lockwood v. Robbins, 125 Ind. 398, 25 N. E. 455.

Iowa. Clark v. Ellsworth, 104 la. 442, 73 N. W. 1023; Wadleigh v. McDowell, 102 la. 480, 71 N. W. 336.

Kentucky. Coleman v. Simpson, 32 Ky. (2 Dana) 166.

Massachusetts. Norwood v. Lathrop, 178 Mass. 208, 59 N. E. 650; Taft v. Shaw, 159 Mass. 592, 35 N. E. 88.

Michigan. Sears v. Giddey, 41 Mich. 590, 32 Am. Rep. 168, 2 N. W. 917.

Minnesota. Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434, 40 Am. St. Rep. 349, 21 L. R. A. 418, 56 N. W. 58.

Nebraska. Harrison v. Hancock (Neb.), 89 N. W. 374.

New York. Randall v. Packard, 142 N. Y. 47, 36 N. E. 823.

Pennsylvania. Perkins v. Hasbrouck, 155 Pa. St. 494, 26 Atl. 695; Masterson v. Masterson, 121 Pa. St. 605, 15 Atl. 652.

Rhode Island. Gorman v. Bannigan, 22 R. I. 22, 46 Atl. 38.

Wisconsin. Standard Printing Co. v. Publishing Co., 87 Wis. 127, 58 N. W. 238; Wojahn v. National Union Bank, 144 Wis. 646, 129 N. W. 1068.

4 Georgia. Wells v. Haynes, 101 Ga. 841, 28 S. E. 968.

Iowa. Clark v. Ellsworth, 104 la. 442, 73 N. W. 1023.

Kentucky. Germania, etc., Co.'s Assignee v. Hargis, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 874, 64 S. W. 516; Brodie v. Parsons, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 831, 64 S. W. 426; Downing v. Major, 32 Ky. (2 Dana) 228.

Massachusetts. Taft v. Shaw, 159 Mass. 592, 35 N. E. 88.

Minnesota. Selover v. Bryant, 54 Minn. 434, 40 Am. St. Rep. 349, 21 L. R. A. 418, 56 N. W. 58.

Missouri. Rose v. Spies, 44 Mo. 20.

New York. Randall v. Packard, 142 N. Y. 47, 36 N. E. 823; Starin v. New York, 106 N. Y. 82, 12 N. E. 643.

Rhode Island. Gorman v. Bannigan, 22 R. T. 22, 46 Atl. 38.

Tennessee. Newman v. Davenport, 68 Tenn. (9 Baxt.) 538.

5 Miller v. Ballerino, 135 Cal. 566, 67 Ac. 1046, 68 Ac. 600.

6 Stillman v. Lefferta (la.). 82 N. W. 491: Miller v. Cuddy, 43 Mich. 273, 38 Am. Rep. 181, 5 N. W. 316; Arring-ton v. Cary, 64 Tenn. (5 Baxt.) 609; Nauman v. Zoerblaut, 21 Wis. 466.

7 Alabama. Morrisette v. Wood, 128 Ala. 505, 30 So. 630.

Iowa. Shelton v. Johnson, 40 la. 84; Peck v. Hutchinson, 88 la. 320, 55 N-W. 511.

New Jersey. Ely v. Wilbur, 49 N. J. L. 685, 60 Am. Rep. 668, 10 Atl. 385, 441.

North Carolina. Prince v. McRae, 84 N. Car. 674.

South Dakota. Webster v. Lamb, 15 S. D. 292, 89 N. W. 473.

Wisconsin. McNamara v. McNamara. 108 Wis. 613, 84 N. W. 901; Garrey v. Stadler, 67 Wis. 512, 58 Am. Rep. 877, 30 N. W. 787.

8 Davis v. Teachout, 126 Mich. 135, 86 Am. St. Rep. 531, 85 N. W. 475.

9 Levitt v. Miller, 64 Mo. App. 147.

10 Silver v. Graves, 210 Mass. 26, 95 N. E. 948.

11 Noble v. Joseph Burnett Co., 208 Mass. 75, 94 N. E. 289.

12 Brennan v. Employers' Liability Assurance Co., 213 Mass. 365, 100 N. E. 633.

shows that the parties did not intend to leave the price to be fixed by some administrative board, or to be determined by the jury as a reasonable price, but intended to fix it themselves by future negotiations, the contract will be invalid.13

If no time is specified for performance,14 or for commencing work,15 or for beginning the construction of a building upon leased land,16 or for accepting an offer for value,17 or for the performance of a contract to marry,18 a reasonable time is intended; and the omission to fix the time specifically does not render the contract incomplete. The fact that the time of delivery is not specified in a contract to deliver goods in reasonable installments as the purchaser might require, does not render such contract invalid, such delivery must, at least, be made in a reasonable time.19 A contract for the construction of a building which does not specify the time within which the building is to be completed, is sufficiently definite, since a reasonable time for performance is to be understood.20 A promise tc pay a certain sum in annual payments without fixing the amount for each, is not so vague as to be unenforceable, since it will be implied that such amount is to be paid at each payment, that the entire principal will be paid in a reasonable time.21 If a contract contains no specific provision as to the delivery of goods which are purchased, the law implies that such goods are to be delivered at a reasonable time.22 So if a contract of guaranty does not limit the time or length of credit to be given, a reasonable time is intended.23 A promise by a pledgee to allow redemption after one year at an increased rate, no time limit being fixed, is suffi-cienty definite, if such redemption is tendered in a reasonable time.24 A promise to extend a mortgage for a "term of years," has been held to be sufficiently definite as being equivalent to a promise to extend such mortgage for a reasonable time.25 If a contract between a shipper and a common carrier provides for the storage of certain articles without cost, such contract imports a reasonable time;26 and the fact that such storage continues longer than the carrier had anticipated, does not prevent the existence of a contract.27 If a contract of sale makes no provision for the time of payment, the implication is that payment on delivery is intended.28 A contract whereby the purchaser of stock agrees not to sell any part of such stock at any time without first giving to the vendor the opportunity to buy such stock at its book value, although the time at which such contract was to be operative was not fixed otherwise, is sufficiently certain.29

13 Livingston Waterworks v. Livingston, 53 Mont. 1, L. R. A. 1917D, 1074, 162 Ac. 381. See $ 80.

14 United States. Frankfurt-Barnett Co. v. Prym Co., 237 Fed. 21, 150 C. C. A. 223, L. R. A. 1918A, 602.

California. Brookings Lumber & Box Co. v. Manufacturers' Automatic Sprinkler Co., 173 Cal. 679, 161 Ac. 266.

Delaware. Ehrenstrom v. Phillips (Del.), 77 Atl. 81.

Georgia. Cothran v. Witham, 123 Ga. 190, 51 S. E. 285.

Indiana. Wills v. Ross, 77 Ind. 1, 40 Am. Rep. 279.

Kansas. Lcis v. Sinclair, 67 Kan. 748, 74 Ac. 261; Bowes v. Sly, 96 Kan. 388, 152 Ac. 17.

Massachusetts. Phelps v. Sheldon, 30 Mass. (13 Pick.) 50, 23 Am. Dec. 659.

Ohio. Stewart v. Herron, 77 O. S. 130, 82 N. E. 956; Rock v. Monarch Building Co., 87 O. S. 244, 100 N. E. 887.

Washington. Andrews v. Uncle Joe, Diamond Broker, 44 Wash. 668, 87 Ac. 947.

15 George D. Barnard Co. v. Babbitt, 54 Iil. App. 62.

16 Rock v. Monarch Building Co., 87 O. S. 244, 100 N. E. 887.

17 Cothran v. Witham, 123 Ga. 190, 51 S. E. 285. See Sec. 138.

18 Bowes v. Sly, 96 Kan. 388, 152 Ac. 17.

19 Frankfurt-Barnett Co. v. Prym Co., 237 Fed. 21, 150 C. C. A. 223, L. R. A. 1918A, 602.

20 Friedman v. Schleuter, 105 Ark. 580, 151 S. W. 696.

21 Tingue v. Patch, 93 Minn. 437, 101 N. W. 792.