QUILLIAN, Judge.
1. The plaintiff contends that he was entitled to the recovery of the earnest money because the contract in question was a nullity. He argues that it was so vague and indefinite as to be unenforceable under the decisions of Hicks v. Stucki,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.