Wolff v. Smith
25 N.E.2d 399, 303 Ill. App. 413, 1940 Ill. App. LEXIS 1239 (1940)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In contracts involving matters of fancy, taste, or personal judgment, a clause requiring performance to the satisfaction of one party makes that party the sole judge of their satisfaction. The party's dissatisfaction does not need to be reasonable, and a court cannot substitute its own judgment for the party's personal determination.
Facts:
- The appellee, a professional portrait painter, had previously painted a successful and accepted portrait of the appellant's deceased father for the family company.
- The appellant, Mr. Smith, later spoke with the appellee about commissioning a similar portrait for his own home.
- On August 3, 1937, the appellee sent the appellant a letter confirming he would paint the second portrait for $400 plus $60 for the frame.
- The letter explicitly stated the work would be done 'on my own initiative and request, and no obligation at no time' and 'to your entire satisfaction.'
- The appellee painted the portrait and delivered it, but the appellant expressed dissatisfaction, citing issues with the eyes, clothing color, and overall lack of vitality compared to the first portrait.
- The appellee made corrections to the portrait at the appellant's home.
- Despite the corrections, the appellant remained unsatisfied, stating the portrait was not a good likeness of his father.
- On February 7, 1938, the appellant returned the portrait to the appellee by express mail and refused to pay for it.
Procedural Posture:
- The painter (plaintiff-appellee) sued the client, Mr. Smith (defendant-appellant), in a trial court to recover the contract price of the portrait and frame.
- A trial was held, resulting in a jury verdict for the plaintiff for $460.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant, Mr. Smith, appealed the judgment to this intermediate 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 to paint a portrait 'to the entire satisfaction' of the client make the client the sole judge of their satisfaction, thereby allowing them to reject the work based on their personal judgment without regard to reasonableness?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Presiding Justice Dove
Yes, a contract for a work of art requiring it to be to the 'entire satisfaction' of the client makes the client the sole judge of their satisfaction. The court distinguished between two classes of 'satisfaction' contracts. The first class involves matters of fancy, taste, or personal judgment, such as works of art. In these cases, the party to be satisfied is the sole judge, and their decision cannot be questioned for its reasonableness. The second class involves matters of operative fitness or mechanical utility, where a 'reasonable person' standard of satisfaction applies. Because a portrait is a work of art that falls squarely into the first category, the appellant was entitled to reject it if he was personally dissatisfied. The court cited precedents like Zaleski v. Clark (a bust) and Gibson v. Cranage (a portrait) to support the principle that the client contracted for their own satisfaction, not that of a court or jury. Therefore, the trial court erred by instructing the jury with a 'reasonable satisfaction' standard instead of a subjective one.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between subjective and objective standards for satisfaction clauses in contract law. It solidifies the principle that for contracts involving personal aesthetics and taste, the promisor's satisfaction is a matter of their own honest judgment, not that of a 'reasonable person.' This places the risk of rejection on the artist or performer who agrees to such a term, protecting the commissioning party's personal preferences. The ruling ensures that in subjective matters, a jury cannot override a party's expressed dissatisfaction and force them to accept a performance they find personally unsatisfactory.
