Briefs contracts

Brief
Strong v. Sheffield.
· The Parties. - Plaintiff: Strong.
I. - Defendant: Sheffield.
· Issue. Is a promise illusory if one party’s performance is entirely at the option of that party? No.
· Arguments: - Plaintiff:
+ Sold his business to Louisa Sheffield’s husband Gerardus on credit.
+ Request payment, denied and thus the suit is brought.

- Defendant:
+ Louisa Sheffieldendorsed a promissory note which was payable on demand.
· Procedural History:
- Plaintiff sued in Trial Court.
- Defendant Appeals.
- Reversed.
· Holding of Court.
There was no agreement to forbear for a fixed time or for a reasonable time, but an agreement to forbear for such time as the plaintiff should elect. This is a case of mutual promises.
· Rationale of Court.
This isinsufficient consideration. We don’t look at what actually happened (that he cashed out after two years), but what the bargain was for; here, defendant could have cashed in five minutes later, in which his promise to plaintiff would not have been violated. Thus, a promise not to take action for an unspecified amount of time does not constitute sufficient consideration to create a contract. No contract,because the defendant’s promise was illusory.
· Rule of Law.
I. A creditor’s promise to forbear the collection of a debt “until such time as I want my money” is illusory and the agreement is not enforceable against either party.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mattei v. Hopper
· The Parties. - Plaintiff: MatteiI. - Defendant: Hopper
· Issue.
Is the satisfaction clause illusory or lacking in mutuality of agreement and thus an invalid consideration?
· Arguments: - Plaintiff:
+ Plaintiff finding that the leases are "satisfactory."
- Defendant:
+ Defendant backs out of the deal, and as an excuse, claims that there was no "mutuality of obligation,"
· Procedural History:
I. - Trial court.
-Defendant appealed.
· Holding of Court.
I. A contract that is dependent on one party’s subjective satisfaction with related matters may nevertheless be enforceable.
· Rationale of Court.
Personal satisfaction clauses do not render a contract illusory or void it for lack of mutuality. In those contracts where the condition calls for satisfaction as to commercial value or quality, operativefitness, or mechanical utility, dissatisfaction cannot be claimed arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously. The standard of a reasonable person is used in determining whether satisfaction has been received. When the satisfaction is one of judgment, the promisor's determination that he is not satisfied must be in good faith. The contract under these circumstances was neither illusory nor lackingin mutuality of obligation.
· Rule of Law.
An agreement made subject to the satisfaction of leases does not render a contract illusory or void it for lack of mutuality because of the requirement of good faith.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Gulf Oil Corporation
· The Parties. -Plaintiff: Eastern Air Lines, Inc.
- Defendant: Gulf Oil Corporation.
· Issue.
I. Was the Defendant’s performance under the contract commercially impracticable?

· Arguments: - Plaintiff:
I. + They could not break their contract, to which Gulf replied there was no contract.
- Defendant:
+ the document lacks mutuality of obligations and is vague and indefinite when speaking offuel “requirements.”
· Procedural History:
I. - Plaintiff claimed breach of contract and requested preliminary and permanent mandatory injunctions requiring defendant to perform the contract. The injunction was entered..
· Holding of Court.
I. A requirements contract entered into in good faith does not violate the rule of mutuality. UCC Section 2-306 specifically allows requirements...