contain a metes-and-bounds property description to be enforceable, but it must furnish the data to identify the property with reasonable certainty. Id., citing Morrow v. Shotwell, 477 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex.1972). Parol evidence may be used to clarify or explain the agreement, but not to supply the agreement’s essential terms. Id. For example, a court of appeals held that a contract for the sale of “my ranch of 2200 acres” satisfied the statute of frauds where extrinsic evidence showed that the grantor owned one ranch, which contained 2200 acres. Jones v. Smith, 231 S.W.2d 1003, 1004 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1950, writ refd n.r.e.). However, a commission agreement for the sale or lease of an unidentified portion of a larger, identifiable tract is not sufficient. See Keller, 928 S.W.2d at 482 (<HOLDING>). Mr. Duncan argues that the May 1 letter
holding that abandonment requires that tenant vacate the leased premises holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees holding unenforceable a commission agreement that specified the address of the leased property but did not identify which 58333 square feet of the propertys total 100000 square feet were being leased holding under kansas law that a plumber who was injured while inspecting the leased premises in order to prepare an estimate for plumbing work had not entered the premises for the purpose for which they were leased and thus could not rely on the public use exception recognizing a landlords duty for injuries sustained on leased premises where the landlord is aware that the premises are leased with intent to admit the public