## Facts

- A publisher and the widow of an author signed a short-form agreement to publish an anthology of the author’s “uncollected” short stories, tentatively titled *The Uncollected Stories of John Cheever*.
- The agreement required the “Author” to deliver a manuscript “as finally arranged by the editor and satisfactory to the Publisher in form and content,” and required the publisher to publish the work within a reasonable time after delivery.
- The agreement did not specify the number of stories, the length of the book, a delivery date, or clear content-selection standards.
- The publisher and its editor located and assembled more than 60 uncollected stories and provided them to the widow; both the widow and the editor received partial advances.
- The widow later objected to publication, attempted to return her advance, and the publisher sought declaratory relief to confirm publication rights and compel delivery of a manuscript.

## Issues

1. Whether the publishing agreement contained sufficiently definite essential terms to form an enforceable contract.
2. Whether courts could enforce the agreement by supplying missing material terms, including minimum content and length requirements.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that no enforceable contract existed.
- The Court concluded the agreement’s essential terms were too indefinite to determine the parties’ obligations with reasonable certainty.
- The Court rejected the trial court’s attempt to impose minimum requirements (a specified number of stories and pages) as an impermissible rewriting of the parties’ bargain.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the determination that the agreement was unenforceable.

## Legal Principles

- Contract formation requires material terms that are reasonably certain; intent to contract does not substitute for definiteness.
- If material terms are so uncertain that a court cannot determine what performance was promised, the agreement is unenforceable.
- Courts may interpret ambiguous language and sometimes fill minor gaps, but they ordinarily will not supply missing essential terms.
- Partial performance or preliminary conduct does not cure a fundamental failure to define the subject matter and core obligations.

## Conclusion

Because the agreement failed to define the “work” to be delivered—leaving key terms like content, length, and delivery parameters open—the court could not ascertain the parties’ commitments and refused to enforce the arrangement by inventing essential terms.


Academy Chicago Publishers v. Cheever, 144 Ill. 2d 24, 578 N.E.2d 981 (Ill. 1991)