salary and bonus package fails for similar reasons. The parties did not agree on an amount, they set no formula, and they did not even relate Murchison’s review to profitability. Moreover, testimony as to the amounts Neeley received as bonuses in two previous years hardly establishes a course of dealing which would justify an inference that review of the bonus portion of the package would generate a similar bonus in years to come. Such evidence certainly demonstrates nothing about the salary component of the package. Even.assuming that the parties intended the promise to carry legal force, therefore, its lack of definiteness deprived the jury of a basis for enforcing it. The district court properly held it unenforceable. See Douglass v. Panama, Inc., 504 S.W.2d 776, 778 (Tex. 1974) (<HOLDING>). C. We move beyond the decision of the
holding that the amount that a defendant made available to himself by way of fraudulent deposits demonstrated the amount of loss intended holding in a ease of a reverse sting operation the use of a large amount of drugs did not amount to sentencing factor manipulation holding prejudgment interest is to be determined on the entire amount of compensatory damages and then reduced by the amount of interest which would have accrued at present value on the settlement amount determined before trial holding that court of appeals erred by rendering judgment for full amount of attorneys fees sought after reversing 0 fee award because jury awarded less in damages than amount sought and therefore uncontroverted attorney testimony on amount of attorneys fees did not establish amount of reasonable and necessary fees as a matter of law holding insufficiently definite bonus agreement that did not establish amount or method for determining amount of payment