Mattei v. Hopper Case Brief

California Supreme Court1958Docket #423235
51 Cal. 2d 119 330 P.2d 625 1958 Cal. LEXIS 213 Contracts Property

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

3 min read

tl;dr: A real estate contract conditioned on the buyer obtaining “satisfactory” leases was held enforceable. The court found the buyer’s promise was not illusory because it was constrained by an implied duty of good faith.

Legal Significance: Establishes that a contractual promise conditioned on the promisor’s subjective satisfaction is not illusory, as the promisor’s discretion is limited by an implied duty of good faith, which constitutes valid consideration.

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 Mattei, a real estate developer, entered into a written agreement to purchase defendant Hopper’s land for a planned shopping center. The agreement, a deposit receipt, required a $1,000 deposit and gave Mattei 120 days to consummate the purchase. A key provision stated the agreement was “Subject to Coldwell Banker & Co. obtaining leases satisfactory to the purchaser.” This clause was included to allow Mattei to secure tenants for the proposed shopping center before being fully committed to the purchase. Mattei paid the deposit and began securing leases. Before the 120-day period expired, Hopper’s attorney notified Mattei that Hopper was repudiating the agreement. Subsequently, Mattei informed Hopper that satisfactory leases had been obtained and he was ready to pay the balance of the purchase price. Hopper refused to tender the deed, and Mattei sued for breach of contract. The trial court found the agreement illusory and lacking mutuality of obligation.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Is a contractual promise rendered illusory and unenforceable for lack of consideration when performance is conditioned on the promisor’s subjective satisfaction with a matter involving personal judgment?

No, the promise is not illusory. The court held that a contract 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 repre

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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

Is a contractual promise rendered illusory and unenforceable for lack of consideration when performance is conditioned on the promisor’s subjective satisfaction with a matter involving personal judgment?

Conclusion

This case solidifies the principle that subjective satisfaction clauses are enforceable, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veni

Legal Rule

A promise conditional upon the promisor's satisfaction is not illusory if 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 occae

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis centered on whether the "satisfaction clause" rendered Mattei's promise 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 id est laborum. Lorem ipsum do

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A contract clause conditioning performance on a party’s satisfaction is not
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 fug

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial