Yes, the customer gets the final say. The contract was very clear: Cranage only had to pay if he was personally satisfied. Since the painting was of his daughter, it was a matter of personal taste and feeling. It doesn't matter if an art expert thought the painting was amazing; Cranage didn't like it, and the deal allowed him to reject it for that reason alone. People are allowed to make contracts like this, and courts will enforce them as written.

The customer doesn't have to pay for the painting because the deal between them was super clear - the painting had to make the customer happy when it was done. The customer is the only one who gets to decide if he's happy with it, that was the agreement. I made the painting, but even I have to admit it didn't make the customer happy like I promised it would. When people make a deal like this, as long as it's not against the law and nobody was tricked, they have to stick to what they agreed, even if other people think the painting is really good. So the customer wins and doesn't have to pay.

<opinion type="majority"> <author id="b67-10">Marston, J.</author> Plaintiff in error brought assumpsit to recover the contract price for the making and execution of a portrait of the deceased daughter of defendant. It appeared from the testimony of the plaintiff that he at a certain time called upon the defendant and solicited the privilege of making an enlarged picture of his deceased daughter. He says “ I was to make an enlarged picture that he would like, a large one from a small one, and one that he would like and recognize as a good picture of his little girl, and he was to pay me.” The defendant testified that the plaintiff was to take the small photograph and send it away to be finished, “and when returned if it was not perfectly satisfactory to me in every particular, I need not take it or pay for it. I still objected and he urged me to do so. There was no risk about it; if it was not perfectly satisfactory to me I need not take it or pay for it.” There was little if any dispute as to what the agreement was. After the picture was finished it was shown <page-number citation-index="1" label="50">*50</page-number>to defendant who was dissatisfied with it and refused to accept it. Plaintiff endeavored to ascertain what the objections were, but says he was unable to ascertain clearly, and he then sent the picture away to the artist to have it changed. On the next day he received a letter from defendant reciting the original agreement, stating that the picture shown him the previous day was not satisfactory and that he declined to take it or any other similar picture, and countermanded the order. A farther correspondence was had, but it was not very material and did not change the aspect of the case. When the picture was after-wards received by the plaintiff from the artist, he went to see defendant and to have him examine it. This defendant declined to do, or to look at it, and did not until during the trial, when he examined and found the same objections still existing. We do not consider it necessary to examine the charge in detail, as we are satisfied it was as favorable to plaintiff as the agreement would warrant. The contract (if it can be considered such) was an express one. The plaintiff agreed that the picture when finished should be satisfactory to the defendant, and his own evidence showed that the contract in this important particular had not been performed. It may be that the picture was an excellent one and that the defendant ought to have been satisfied with it and accepted it, but under the agreement the defendant was the only person who had the right to decide this question. Where parties thus deliberately enter into an agreement which violates no rule of public policy, and which is free from all taint of fraud or mistake, there is no hardship whatever in holding them bound by it. Artists or third parties might consider a portrait an excellent one, and yet it prove very unsatisfactory to the person who had ordered it and who might be unable to point out with clearness or certainty the defects or objections. And if the person giving the order stipulates <page-number citation-index="1" label="51">*51</page-number>that the portrait when finished must be satisfactory to him or else he will not accept or pay for it, and this is agreed to, he may insist upon his right as given him by the contract. McCarren v. McNulty, 7 Gray, 141; Brown v. Foster, 113 Mass., 136: 18 Amer., 465. The judgment must be affirmed with costs. <judges id="b69-5">The other Justices concurred.</judges> </opinion>

Yes, a contract provision requiring a product be 'satisfactory' gives the buyer sole, subjective discretion to reject it. When parties freely and deliberately enter into a contract conditioning acceptance on the personal satisfaction of one party, that party is the only person with the right to decide the question. The court will not substitute the judgment of a 'reasonable person' or a jury for the buyer's own, especially in matters of personal taste, fancy, or judgment, such as a portrait. Because Cranage stipulated that the portrait must be satisfactory to him and he was not satisfied, he was not required to accept or pay for it, regardless of whether others might have found it to be an excellent likeness.

No, the defendant is not obligated to accept or pay for the portrait because the express contract between the parties clearly stated that the picture, when finished, must be satisfactory to the defendant. As the sole person with the right to decide this question under the agreement, the defendant's determination that the portrait was unsatisfactory is binding. My own evidence as the plaintiff confirms the portrait did not satisfy the defendant, and therefore I failed to perform the contract. Where parties freely enter into such agreements, provided they do not violate public policy and are untainted by fraud or mistake, they must be held to their bargain, even if others might consider the portrait excellent. The judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed with costs.

Gibson v. Cranage

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot