The difficulties which have troubled many courts in dealing with contracts for the sale of goods have seemed to vanish when these courts have turned from a consideration of contracts of sale to a consideration of contracts for work and labor. If the contract of employment is one for a fixed term, and if the contract is to be paid in instalments at certain intervals during such term, it is usually held that such contract is entire;1 so that an employe who has broken such contract by refusing or omitting to perform further, can not recover on the contract for the work which he has done already.2 If the compensation is not to be paid in instalments by the terms of the contract, it is even more clear that the contract is entire.3 A contract to prepare plans and specifications for a building, and to supervise the construction thereof for a certain percentage of the price thereof, is an entire contract;4 so that no recovery can be had for preparing the plans and specifications if the architect omits or refuses to perform the contract for supervising the construction5 Under a contract by a teacher to teach for nine months at forty-five dollars per pupil, he can not recover on the contract if he teaches for only eight months and a half.6 The question of the right to recover in quasi-contract in such cases is discussed elsewhere.7

9 Jackson v Rotax Motor & Cycle Co. [1910], 2 K. B. 937; Duluth Log Co. v. John C Bill Lumber Co., 110 Minn 124, 124 N. W. 967.

1 Alabama. Liddell v Chidester, 84 Ala 508, 5 Am St. Rep. 3S7, 4 So. 426.

California. Hutchinson v Wetmore, 2 Cal. 310, 56 Am Dec. 337.

Maryland. Olmstend v. Bach, 78 Md 132, 44 Am St. Rep. 273, 22 L. R. A. 74, 27 Atl 501.

Massachusetts. Davis v. Maxwell, 53 Mass (12 Met.) 286.

New Jersey. Larkin v. Hecksher, 51 N. J. L. 133, 3 L. R. A. 137, 16 Atl 703.

Ohio. Larkin v. Buck, II O. S. 561.

Wisconsin. Koplitz v. Powell, 56 Wis. 671, 14 N. W. 831.

1 Alabama. Liddell v. Chideeter, 84 Ala. 508, 5 Am. St. Rep. 387, 4 So. 426.

California. Hutchinson v. Wetmore, 2 Cal 310, 56 Am Dec 337.

Maryland. Olmatead v. Bach, 73 Md. 132, 44 Am St Rep. 273, 22 L R. A 74, 27 Atl. 501.

Massachusetts. Davis v. Maxwell, 53 Mass. (12 Met) 286.

New Jersey. Larkin v. Hecksher, 51 N. J. L 133, 3 L. R. A. 137, 16 Atl 703.

Ohio. Larkin v. Buck, 11 O, S. 561

Wisconsin. Koplitz v. Powell, 56 Wis. 671, 14 N. W. 831.

3 Hill v. Balkcom, 79 Ga. 444, 5 S. £. 200; Spalding County v. Chamberlin, 130 Ga. 649, 61 S. E. 533.

4 Spalding County v. Chamberlin, 130 Ga. 649, 61 S. E. 533.

5 Spalding County v. Chamberlin, 130 Ga. 649, 61 S. E. 533.

6 Hill v. Balkcom, 79 Ga. 444, 5 S. E. 200.

A contract for doing certain work is entire, although the compensation is, by the terms of the contract, to be measured in accord-* ance with the quantity of the work as ascertained during actual performance, or by the time necessary for performance, as ascertained by actual performance, and the like.8 A contract to thrash a crop of grain at a certain price per bushel is entire,9 and the thrasher can not recover reasonable compensation, or on the contract, for thrashing a part of such crop.10 unless further performance is discharged by some recognized form of discharge,11 or the jurisdiction is one in which a party in default may recover in quasi-contract.12

If, however, the parties have treated the contract as severable, effect will be given to the construction which they have thus placed on it:13 so that the employe may recover compensation for the work actually done although he abandoned such employment before the end of the period agreed upon.14

A contract for work and labor is so far entire that minor defects as to one instalment do not authorize the party for whom such work is done to treat the contract as discharged, at least if he has waived such breach by accepting such instalment.15 If A agrees to mine ore from B's mine and to deliver it to B, the fact that a small part of such ore was not free from foreign substances, as required by the terms of the contract, is not a breach which operates as a discharge, at least if B continues to accept delivery under the contract and if A has incurred heavy preliminary expenses before beginning performance.16