
    Spiritusfabriek Astra of Amsterdam, Holland, Respondent, v. Sugar Products Company, Appellant.
    (Argued June 4, 1917;
    decided June 15, 1917.)
    
      Spiritusfabriek Astra of Amsterdam, Holland, v. Sugar Products Co., 176 App. Div. 839, affirmed.
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 23, 1917, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a -motion, by defendant, for judgment on the pleadings. This action is brought to recover damages for the breach of a written contract by which plaintiff agreed to buy from defendant and defendant agreed to sell to plaintiff, for a specified price, from 6,000 to 12,000 tons of San Domingo or Cuban molasses yearly for a term of three years from July 1, 1914, “buyer’s option in both instances.” The defendant moved for.judgment on the grounds that the alleged agreement contained on its face a stipulation to agree in the future on an essential term, viz., time of delivery, and that it was, therefore, not a contract; that the alleged agreement was vague and uncertain in other respects to such an extent as to render it unenforceable; that the complaint failed to allege a demand for delivery of the molasses within a reasonable time, and that the complaint failed to allege plaintiff’s ability to pay for the molasses alleged to have been contracted to be delivered.
    The following question was certified: “Does the complaint state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ? ”
    
      Joseph M. Proskauer and Clarence M. Lewis for appellant.
    
      Hiram Thomas and Henry H. Abbott for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ.  