MATTEI v. HOPPER Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A developer’s agreement to buy land was conditioned on obtaining “satisfactory” leases. The seller repudiated, claiming the promise was illusory. The court held the contract was valid because the buyer’s implied duty to exercise good faith in judging the leases provided sufficient consideration.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a contractual promise conditioned on one party’s subjective satisfaction is not illusory, as the implied duty to exercise that satisfaction in good faith constitutes valid consideration, creating a binding agreement.
MATTEI v. HOPPER Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff, a real estate developer, executed a deposit receipt to purchase defendant’s land, which was adjacent to a planned shopping center. The total purchase price was $57,500, of which plaintiff paid a $1,000 deposit. The agreement contained a key provision: “Subject to Coldwell Banker & Company obtaining leases satisfactory to the purchaser.” This clause granted plaintiff a 120-day period to secure leases for the planned shopping center before his obligation to pay the balance became final. While plaintiff was actively negotiating these leases, but before the 120-day period had elapsed, defendant’s attorney notified plaintiff that defendant was repudiating the agreement. Subsequently, plaintiff informed defendant that satisfactory leases had been secured and tendered the balance of the purchase price. Defendant refused to convey the property, and plaintiff sued for breach of contract. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding the agreement illusory and lacking mutuality of obligation due to the satisfaction clause.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a clause in a real estate purchase agreement that conditions the buyer’s duty to perform upon obtaining leases “satisfactory” to the buyer render the agreement illusory and unenforceable for lack of consideration?
No, the contract is enforceable. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur si
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a clause in a real estate purchase agreement that conditions the buyer’s duty to perform upon obtaining leases “satisfactory” to the buyer render the agreement illusory and unenforceable for lack of consideration?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational precedent establishing that satisfaction clauses based on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
Legal Rule
A contractual promise conditioned on the promisor's satisfaction is not illusory if Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Except
Legal Analysis
The court addressed the defendant's argument that the satisfaction clause made the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A contract is not illusory if a party’s performance is conditioned