(plaintiff’s predecessor in interest entered into an agreement for a right of first refusal (ROFR) to purchase or lease defendants’ property; the ROFR was binding upon the parties, their heirs, representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, and plaintiff’s predecessor paid $4,000 for this right; thirteen years later, defendant notified plaintiff that she was terminating the ROFR; the lower court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the ROFR was contrary to public policy because it did not contain a definite term of years or months; in reversing the judgment, the court ruled that the ROFR was sufficiently definite because it did not place a restraint on alienation; rather, it provided a “possible buyer who was constantly available”).