George Phillips, a former physician who became a lawyer, worked for a personal-injury firm under a written agreement promising production-based compensation from cases he helped resolve. The firm later paid him a salary, and a dispute arose over whether the original agreement had been terminated and whether it was sufficiently definite to enforce. The trial court granted the firm summary judgment, ruling that the agreement was unenforceable and that Phillips could not recover in quantum meruit. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the compensation language was too indefinite to create an enforceable express contract, but that Phillips could pursue quantum meruit if he proved the parties had not replaced the agreement when he began receiving a salary and that his work under the void agreement had value. The decision distinguishes an unenforceable contract from the equitable remedy available when services were accepted in good-faith reliance on an apparent agreement.