Overruled. Plaintiff brings this demurrer to Kapanicas’ answer. He contends that the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh affirmative defenses are uncertain because they do not specifically identify the cause of action to which they apply. Additionally, he asserts that the first, second, third, and fourth affirmative defenses improperly use the term “contentions.” A plaintiff may attack an answer via a demurrer on the following grounds: “(a) The answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense. (b) The answer is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, ‘uncertain’ includes ambiguous and unintelligible. (c) Where the answer pleads a contract, it cannot be ascertained from the answer whether the contract is written or oral.” C.C.P. § 430.20. Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored and will only be sustained where the responding party cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what claims are directed against him. Khoury v. Maly