2d 579, 582 [130 p.2d 982]); the decree did not indicate with certainty the amount to be paid by the applicant (28 Cal.Jur.2d, § 76, p. 710), and since exhibitions are normally withdrawn, the amount to be paid would be a matter of speculation and presumption. Why not just speak up to the complaining party for what the accused owes? The majority stake will result in endless difficulties – sworn insurance and counter-affvits will have to be filed to expose the terms of the ownership agreement, as these conditions are not registered. In any event, since the majority has ruled and continues to believe that it is a fact that the court and the parties intend to incorporate it, this case must be decided and then decided by a court of appeal and, finally, by that court, which can say without discoloration and without a suspicion of conscience. “In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the conclusion of the Court of Justice [or the conclusion of the Court of Appeal] that a merger was not contemplated was not binding on that court. (Fox v. Fox, 42 Cal. 2d 49, 52 [265 p.2d 881]; The Platt Estate, 21 Cal. 2d 343, 352 [131 p.2d 825]” It is apparent from the final paragraph of the majority opinion that even the majority of this court [47 cal. 2d 128] apologizes for what is being done in this case. What will happen to our compromise agreement? Morry If you apply the foregoing to your question, you have, as an aggrieved party, in the agreement you have entered into with your son`s father, the right to choose to terminate the agreement and pursue a legal case to ensure sufficient support for your son or enforce the agreement. . .

.