David S. Wilson v. L. B. Holyfield

Summary

The court held that the land-sale contract's financing provision was sufficiently definite and enforceable despite omitting terms concerning security and prepayment. It ruled that the provision must be enforced according to its written terms rather than supplemented with customary provisions the parties did not include, and therefore reversed and remanded. CARRICO, C.J., dissenting, would have affirmed because the parties had not agreed on essential financing and security terms.