Mattei v. Hopper
Supreme Court of California
330 P.2d 625 (1958)
Real-estate developer Peter Mattei (plaintiff) agreed to buy land from Amelia Hopper (defendant), recording the deal on a deposit-receipt form requiring a $1,000 deposit and giving Mattei 120 days to pay the balance, subject to "obtaining leases satisfactory to the purchaser" for his planned shopping center. Mattei paid the deposit and began securing leases, but before the 120 days expired, Hopper told him she wouldn't proceed with the sale; although Mattei obtained satisfactory leases and offered to pay the balance, Hopper refused to convey the deed. Mattei sued for breach, and the trial court ruled for Hopper; Mattei appealed.
Whether a satisfaction clause in a real-estate contract that bases one party's promise to perform on satisfaction of a condition renders the promise illusory or lacking consideration.