Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Omni v. Seattle Bank
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
Omni v. Seattle Bank | |
Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
---|---|
Citation | 645 P.2d 727 |
Date decided | May 24, 1982 |
Facts
- The Clark family ("Clark") listed 59 acres of land for sale in the state of Washington = original defendant
- Omni Group, Inc. = "Omni" = plaintiff = a real estate development company
- Omni offered to pay $2,000/acre
- The 2 parties signed an earnest-money contract subject to a feasibility report by an engineer & architect
- After a few weeks, Omni announced that it would waive the reporting requirement. At this juncture, Clark refused to sell the land.
- Seattle-First National Bank = "Bank" = new defendant = the bank became the respondent as Clark's executor when Clark passed away
Procedural History
- Omni sued the Bank to enforce the earnest-money contract.
- The trial court ruled that Omni's promise to purchase the land was an illusory promise. https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/illusory-promise
Issues
Is a promise conditioned on a satisfactory clause an illusory promise that makes a contract un-enforceable?
Holding
No. Contracts containing satisfaction clauses are enforceable because there's an implied duty to exercise subjective judgment in good faith.
Omni's promise to buy the property wasn't illusory.
Specific performance of the contract is ordered.Judgment
Reversed. Case remanded.
Rule
(condition precedent) + (party's personal satisfaction with performance) != (party's promise to perform contractual obligations illusory)