The offer must not merely be complete in terms, but the terms must be sufficiently definite to enable the court to determine whether the contract has been performed or not.1 If the court can determine from the terms of the contract what the parties have agreed upon as performance, the fact that the contract does not provide for damages,2 or the fact that damages can not be estimated exactly,3 does not render the contract indefinite.

6 Tobey v. County of Bristol, 3 Story 800, Fed. Cas. No. 14065.

7 Lister Agricultural Chemical Works v. Selby, 68 N. J. Eq. 271, 59 Atl. 247.

8 Richardson v. Smith, L. R. 5 ch. App. 648; Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co., 163 U. S. 564, 41 L. ed. 282; Richardson v. Harkness, 59 Wash. 474, 110 Ac. 9.

9 Richardson v. Smith, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 648.

10 Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co., 163 U. S. 564, 41 L. ed. 282.

11 St. Louis v. St. Louis Gaslight Co., 70 Mo. 69; Lowe v. Brown, 22 O. S. 463; Bristol v. Bristol & Warren Waterworks, 19 R. I. 413, 32 L. R. A. 740, 34 Atl. 359.

12 Lowe v. Brown, 22 0. S. 463.

13 Coles v. Peck, 96 Ind. 333, 49 Am. Rep. 161; Greason v. Keteltas, 17 N. Y. 491; Bristol v. Bristol & Warren Waterworks, 19 R. I. 413, 32 L. R. A. 740, 34 Atl. 359; Cooke v. Miller, 25 R. I. 92, 1 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 30, 54 Atl. 927.

1 England. Guthing v. Lynn, 2 B. & Ad. 232.

The test of ability to ascertain the measure of damages from the contract has been suggested as the test for certainty.4 It has been said that if no breach of the contract could be assigned which could be measured by any test of damages from the contract, it is too indefinite to be enforceable at law.5 On the other hand, if, from the contract, the court can determine the terms and conditions thereof, and can determine the measure of damages in case of breach, the contract is sufficiently definite.6 In practically all of

United States. Woerheide v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 251 Fed. 196.

Georgia. Hart v. Ry., 101 Ga. 188, 28 S. E. 637; Douglass v. W. L. Williams Art Co., 143 Ga. 846, 85 S. E. 993.

Illinois. Minnesota Lumber Co. v. Coal Co., 160 111. 85, 31 L. R. A. 529, 43 N. E. 774.

Iowa. Des Moines v. Waterworks Co., 95 la. 348, 64 N. W. 269; Gould v. Gunn, 161 la. 155, 140 N. W. 380.

Louisiana. Peet v. Meyer, 42 La. Ann. 1034, 8 So. 534.

Maryland. DeBearn v. DeBearn, 126 Md. 629, 95 Atl. 476.

Michigan. Detroit Savings Bank v. Loveland, 168 Mich. 163, 130 N. W. 678.

Minnesota. Kull v. Wilson, 137 Minn. 127, 162 N. W. 1072.

Missouri. State v. Associated Press, 159 Mo. 410, 81 Am. St. Rep. 368, 51 L. R. A. 151, 60 S. W. 91; Kelly v. Thuey, 143 Mo. 422, 45 S. W. 300; Anderson v. Hall, 273 Mo. 307, 202 S. W. 539.

Montana. Price v. Stipek, 39 Mont. 426, 104 Ac. 195; Schwab v. McVey, 54 Mont. 422, 171 Ac. 277.

New Jersey. Vreeland v. Vreeland, 53 N. J. Eq. 387, 32 Atl. 3.

New York. United Press v. Press Co., 164 N. Y. 406, 53 L. R. A. 288, 58 N. E. 527; Varney v. Ditmars, 217 N. Y. 223, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 758, 111 N. E. 822.

North Carolina. Mfg. Co. v. Hobbs, 128 N. Car. 46, 83 Am. St. Rep. 661, 38 S. E. 26; Rhyne v. Rhyne, 151 N. Car. 400, 66 S. E. 348: Wooten v. S. R. Biggs Drug Co., 169 X. Car. 64, 85 S. E. 140.

Oklahoma. Central Mortgage Co. v. Michigan State Life Ins. Co., 43 Okla. 33, 143 Ac. 175; Arkansas Valley Town & Land Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 49 Okla. 282, 151 Ac. 1028. Oregon. Gaines v. Vandecar, 50 Or. 187, 115 Ac. 721 [rehearing denied, Gaines v. Vandecar, 115 Ac. 1122]; Gregory v. Oregon Fruit Juice Co., 84 Or. 199, 164 Ac. 728.

Pennsylvania. Smith v. Crum Lynne Iron & Steel Co., 208 Pa. St. 462, 57 Atl. 953; Butler v. Kemmerer, 218 Pa. St. 242, 67 Atl. 332.

Virginia. Belmont v. McAllister, 116 Va. 285, 81 S. E. 81.

Washington. Hampton v. Buchanan, 51 Wash. 155, 98 Ac. 374.

West Virginia. Paxton- v. Benedum-Trees Oil Co., 80 W. Va. 187, 94 S. E. 472.

2 Dugger v. Kelly, 168 la. 129, 150 N. W. 27.

3 Harms v. Stern, 222 Fed. 581.

4 Pulliam v. Schimpf, 109 Ala. 179, 19 So. 428.

5 Pulliam v. Schimpf, 109 Ala. 179, 19 So. 428.

6 Scholtz v. Ins. Co., 100 Fed. 573, 40 C. C. A. 556; Harms v. Stern, 222 these cases the same result is reached, whether we take certainty in performance or certainty in damages as the test of certainty of the contract.