51 S.E.2d 567 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1949
1. The exclusive agency contract here involved is not void for want of mutuality.
2. The contract is not too vague and indefinite to be enforced.
3. The question of the correct measure of damages is not raised by general demurrer.
2. The petition alleged that the exclusive agency was to be in effect from date of agreement to "on or about the 15th day of June, on which date defendant anticipated removing with his family to the City of Miami, Florida." The alleged date on which the contract was to come to an end is not so vague and indefinite as to render the contract void and unenforceable. The date on which the defendant anticipated removing with his family to Miami, Florida is a definite time, capable of being sustained by proof. The court did not err in holding that the contract was not too vague and indefinite to be enforced.
3. Only a general demurrer was filed, so no ruling is called for as to what is the correct measure of damages for a breach of such a contract where the contract does not itself provide therefor.
The court did not err in overruling the general demurrer.
Judgment affirmed. Sutton, C. J., and Parker, J., concur.