Cargill Coal Co. v. Clair I. Valentine

STEINLE, Justice. The defendant contends that the written phrase in the contract 'to be financed,' clearly indicates an intention that the
plaintiff would accept the purchase price in the form of deferred payments, and that since the times for payment are not fixed,
the contract is indefinite as to payment, and hence is invalid under the rule of Buck v. Pond, 1905, 126 Wis. 382, 105 N.W.
909; Poole v. Tannis, 1908, 137 Wis. 363, 118 N.W. 188, 118 N.W. 864, and Bast v. Sproll, 1922, 176 Wis. 371, 187 N.W. 223.
It is the position of the plaintiff that the contract calls for cash payment from the defendant upon the completion of the
installation of the furnace.