Indefiniteness

In 1952 plaintiff and defendant began living together and holding themselves out to the community as husband and wife. Defendant acknowledges that the two children born of the relationship are his. Plaintiff alleges that since the inception of the relationship she has performed domestic duties and business services at the request of defendant with the expectation that she would receive full compensation for them. Defendant has always accepted her services knowing that she expected compensation for them. They have filed joint tax returns over the past several years. Plaintiff seeks judgment in the amount of $250,000 on her first cause of action. The second cause of action realleges the first and adds that in 1952 the parties entered into an oral partnership agreement under which plaintiff would furnish domestic services and defendant would have full charge of business transactions. Under the agreement defendant would support, maintain and provide for plaintiff in accordance with his earning capacity, take care of the plaintiff and do right by her, and the net profits from the partnership were to be used for and applied to the equal benefit of plaintiff and defendant. Defendant commanded that plaintiff not obtain employment or he would leave her. Since 1952 defendant has collected large sums of money from companies and business dealings. Since December of 1975 defendant has dishonored the agreement, failed to provide support or maintenance, and refused her demands for an accounting. Special Term dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of both causes of action. The case is presented on appeal to the New York Court of Appeals with the questions whether a contract as to earnings and assets may be implied in fact from the relationship of an unmarried couple living together and whether an express contract of such a couple on those subjects is enforceable.

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. and Gulf Oil Corporation maintained a business relationship spanning several decades involving the sale and purchase of aviation fuel. On June 27, 1972, following months of arm's length negotiation, the parties executed a contract under which Gulf agreed to supply Eastern's requirements of jet fuel at specified cities in the Eastern system through January 31, 1977. The agreement was Gulf's standard form aviation fuel contract and incorporated a price escalation clause tied to the average of the posted prices for West Texas sour crude oil 30.0-30.9 gravity as listed for Gulf, Shell, and Pan American in Platt's Oilgram Crude Oil Supplement. The contract price mechanism operated against the backdrop of U.S. government price controls in effect from 1972 through the fall of 1973. In late 1973 the Arab oil embargo occurred. OPEC unilaterally increased the price of their crude to the world market some 400% between September, 1973, and January 15, 1974. This triggered implementation of two-tier price controls under which old oil remained frozen at controlled levels while new and released oil prices rose from approximately $5 to $11 per barrel. Platt's continued publishing only the controlled old oil postings for West Texas Sour, and Eastern paid contract prices that rose from 11 cents to 15 cents per gallon. On March 8, 1974, Gulf demanded that Eastern accept a price increase or face cutoff of jet fuel supplies within fifteen days. Eastern filed its complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging breach and seeking preliminary and permanent mandatory injunctions. By agreement of the parties a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo was entered on March 20, 1974, requiring Gulf to continue performance and Eastern to pay according to contract terms pending final disposition. Gulf answered and asserted that the contract lacked mutuality, was not a binding requirements contract, and was commercially impracticable. At trial the parties presented evidence concerning Eastern's fuel liftings at Gulf stations, which varied daily, weekly, and monthly due to weather, schedules, aircraft loads, and fuel freighting practices that Gulf had accepted without objection over thirty years of dealing. Gulf introduced evidence of its increased crude oil costs, including intra-company transfer prices that incorporated profits from its overseas and domestic production subsidiaries, while the record showed Gulf recorded net profits after taxes of approximately $800 million in 1973 and more than $1.065 billion in 1974.

Monte Durham was convicted of housebreaking by the District Court of the District of Columbia sitting without a jury. The prosecution proceeded on a charge arising from an incident on July 13, 1951, in which Durham was found in a house. Durham's history included discharge from the Navy in 1945 at age seventeen following a psychiatric examination revealing a profound personality disorder rendering him unfit for service. In 1947 he pleaded guilty to violating the National Motor Theft Act and was placed on probation for one to three years. In January 1948, as a result of a conviction in the District of Columbia Municipal Court for passing bad checks, the District Court revoked his probation and he commenced service of his Motor Theft sentence. His conduct within the first few days in jail led to a lunacy inquiry in the Municipal Court where a jury found him to be of unsound mind. Upon commitment to St. Elizabeths he was diagnosed as suffering from 'psychosis with psychopathic personality.' He experienced multiple discharges and readmissions to St. Elizabeths between 1949 and 1951, including a conditional release in June 1950 that he violated, and a further lunacy finding in 1951. Following the July 1951 housebreaking, Durham was indicted in October 1951 and adjudged of unsound mind based on psychiatrists' affidavits diagnosing psychosis with psychopathic personality. He underwent subshock insulin therapy during a six-month commitment ending in February 1953, after which Dr. Silk certified him mentally competent to stand trial and able to assist counsel. At the ensuing trial, the prosecutor expressed a plan to allow Durham to raise an insanity defense on this charge. The court accepted waivers of jury trial and additional competency proceedings despite Durham's expressed desire for further hospitalization. Testimony included that of Durham's mother regarding his post-May 1951 behavior and a psychiatrist who examined him in September 1951 and opined on his mental condition around the time of the offense. The trial court found the defense of insanity not established under the prevailing standards. The appeal reached the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In June 1918, James A. Halsey, an old man and a widower, was living without family or housekeeper in his house in Hornell, New York. He told the plaintiffs that if they gave up their home and business in Andover, New York, and boarded and cared for him during his life, the house and lot with its furniture and equipment would be theirs upon his death. The plaintiffs did as he asked, selling out an interest in a little draying business in Andover and boarding and tending him until he died about five months after their coming. Neither deed nor will nor memorandum subscribed by the promisor exists to authenticate the promise, and the plaintiffs ask specific performance. During Halsey's lifetime the plaintiffs had no possession of the property and did not occupy it as owners. Halsey retained possession, and the plaintiffs lived with him merely as his servants or guests who could be asked to leave at any time. The plaintiffs paid food bills and performed housekeeping work while Halsey paid the taxes and upkeep costs. There were ties of kinship between one of the plaintiffs and Halsey.