Case Citation
Legal Case Name

MATTEI v. HOPPER Case Brief

Supreme Court of California. In Bank1958
51 Cal.2d 119 330 P.2d 625

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

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

General Brief
3 min read

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

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

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
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 dol

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Justice is truth in action.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+