With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding in a ease of a reverse sting operation the use of a large amount of drugs did not amount to sentencing factor manipulation
B: 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
C: holding that the amount that a defendant made available to himself by way of fraudulent deposits demonstrated the amount of loss intended
D: holding insufficiently definite bonus agreement that did not establish amount or method for determining amount of payment
D.