Paul v. Rosen
122 N.E.2d 603, 3 Ill. App. 2d 423 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract is void for lack of mutuality of obligation if its effectiveness is conditioned upon one party performing an act that they are under no legal duty to perform.
Facts:
- On June 22, 1948, the plaintiff agreed to purchase a retail liquor business from the defendant for $25,000, and deposited $2,500 in escrow.
- The written agreement contained a clause stating, 'This agreement is conditioned upon the Buyer obtaining a new lease ... for a period of five years'.
- The contract did not impose any duty on the plaintiff to seek or obtain the lease.
- When the plaintiff and his partners arrived to take a contractually required inventory of the merchandise, the defendant refused to permit them.
- The defendant rescheduled the inventory for a later date but again refused to permit it to be taken.
- Following the defendant's refusal to proceed, the plaintiff's $2,500 deposit was returned to him.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract in an Illinois trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $2,500.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contract for the sale of a business have mutuality, and is therefore enforceable, when it is expressly conditioned on the buyer obtaining a five-year lease, an act which the buyer has no obligation to perform?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Presiding Justice Kiley
No, the contract lacks mutuality and is therefore void. An agreement is not an enforceable contract where its effectiveness is contingent on a condition precedent that is entirely within the discretion of one party, who is not obligated to perform it. The court reasoned that the buyer, the plaintiff, was 'free to get the lease or not as he willed.' Because there was no compulsion on the plaintiff to obtain the lease, there was no mutual obligation binding both parties at the time the agreement was signed. The obtaining of the lease was a condition precedent to the entire agreement, and since the plaintiff had no duty to fulfill it, the contract was void for lack of mutuality. Consequently, the defendant had no obligations under the void contract and could not be held liable for an anticipatory breach.
Analysis:
This case provides a classic example of the doctrine of mutuality of obligation, where a promise is deemed illusory if one party has complete discretion over its performance. The court's decision highlights how a condition precedent, if not coupled with a duty of good faith or reasonable efforts to satisfy it, can render an entire contract unenforceable. While modern contract law has moved towards implying good faith efforts to save such agreements, this ruling reflects a stricter, more traditional application of the doctrine. It serves as a cautionary tale for contract drafters to ensure that conditions are not so one-sided as to make a party's promise illusory.
