SATISFACTION, CONTRACTS TO. A term used to express a class of contracts in which one party agrees to perform his prom ise to the satisfaction of the other. The cases have been classified by Prof. Lawson, in 46 Cent. L. J. 360, as follows : 1. Where the fancy, taste, sensibility, or judgment of the promisor are involved. 2. Where the question is merely one of operative fitness or mechanical utility. In the first class the courts refuse to say that where a man agrees to pay if he is satisfied with the performance, he should be compelled to pay if some one else is satisfied with it. The courts recognize that in matters of taste or opinion there is no absolute standard as to what• is good or bad. Hence, where the subject-matter is a suit of clothes ; Brown v. Foster, 113 Mass. 136, 18 Am. Rep. 463 ; a bust of the defend ant's husband; Zaleski v. Clark, 44 Conn. 218, 26 Am. Rep. 446; a portrait of the de fendant's daughter ; Gibson v. Cranage, 39 Mich. 49, 33 Am. Rep. 351; a cabinet organ; McClure Bros. v. Briggs, 58 Vt. 82, 2 Atl. 583, 56 Am. Rep. 557 ; a set of artificial teeth ; 7 Pitts. L. J. 140; a carriage; 2 C. B. N. S. 779 ; a steam-heater for a house ; Adams Radiator & B. Works v. Schnader, 155 Pa. 394, 26 Atl. 745, 35 Am. St. Rep. 893; a play to be written by an author for an actor ; Haven v. Russell, 34 N. Y. Supp. 292 ; a de sign for a bank-note; Gray v. Bank, 10 N. Y. Supp. 5; the question is not one for the court or jury to decide, but for the promisee alone.
So where the contract gives the master a right to discharge a servant if he is satis fied that the servant is incompetent ; Duplex Safety Boiler Co. v. Garden, 101 N. Y. 387, 54 Am. Rep. 714; or to employ him so long as he is satisfactory ; Spring v. Clock Co., 24 Hun (N. Y.) 175 ; or to pay for services if they are satisfactory; Johnson v. Bindseil, 8 N. Y. Supp. 485.
In the second class of cases, Mr. Lawson maintains that the same principle of law should be applied, and gives a number of cases where it has been applied; where the subject-matter of the agreement was the making of a book-case; McCarren v. McNul
ty, 7 Gray (Mass.) 139 ; the sale of a harvest ing machine; Wood Reap. & M. M. Co. v. Smith, 50 Mich. 565, 15 N. W. 936, 45 Am. St. Rep. 57; the sale of a steam fire engine; Silsby Mfg. Co. v. Chico, 24 Fed. 893 ; of a cord binder ; McCormick H. M. Co. v. Ches rown, 33 Minn. 32, 21 N. W. 846; a steam boat ; Gray v. R. Co., 11 Hun (N. Y.) 70; an elevator ; Singerly v. Thayer, 108 Pa. 297, 2 Atl. 230, 56 Am. Rep. 207 ; steam fans ; Ex haust Ventilator Co. v. Ry. Co., 66 Wis. 218, 28 N. W. 343, 57 Am. Rep. 257; a printing press; Campbell Printing-Press Co. v. Thorp, 36 Fed. 414, 1 L. R. A. 645 ; a grain binder; Plano Mfg. Co. v. Ellis, 68 Mich. 101, 35 N. W. 841; a gas machine ; Aiken v. Hyde, 99 Mass. 183 ; a fanning mill ; Goodrich v. Van Nortwick, 43 Ill. 445; the purchase of a saloon ; Stuart & Peterson Co. v. Newton, 52 Pa. Super. Ct. 158.
The promisee must act in good faith; his dissatisfaction must be actual not feigned; real not merely pretended; Daggett v. John son, 49 Vt. 345; Singerly v. Thayer, 108 Pa. 297, 2 Atl. 230, 56 Am. Rep. 207. He must not act from caprice; Sidney School Furni ture Co. v. School Dist., 130 Pa. 76, 18 AU. 604. He must, if a test is necessary to de termine its fitness, give that test or allow it to be made; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Brydon, 65 Md. 198, 611, 3 Atl. 306, 9 AU. 126, 57 Am. Rep. 318; Exhaust Ventilator Co. v. R. Co., 66 Wis. 218, 28 N. W. 343, 57 Am. Rep. 257 ; Crane Elevator Co. v. Clark, 80 Fed. 705, 26 C. C. A. 100; Adams Radia tor & B. Works v. Schnader, 155 Pa. 394, 26 Atl. 745, 35 Am. St. Rep. 893, holding that where the promisor dies before the test is made, the right to reject vests in his execu tor.
So an article to be manufactured cannot be rejected before it is substantially completed, so that the promisor will be able fairly to determine whether it was or would be sat isfactory to him; Singerly v. Thayer, 108 Pa. 297, 2 Atl. 230, 56 Am. Rep. 207.