The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-12-21

with plaintiff IS work. For aUght
that appears il may have discharged
and refused to pay the plaintiff be
cause dissatisfied with the amount OF
his salary, or for some other reason
than dissatisfaction with his work,
and il is only his work that is re
CURED TO be satisfactory by the cove
nant and condition In question. To
go no further, the question OF the
| existence OF defendants DISSATISFIED
| ton would have to go to the jury
But is there anything IN the con-
tract which would require the jury TO
| 60 further and pass upon the reason
| ableness Of the dissatisfaction, II
any 1t may be unwise for person
TO engage to satisfy another, but it
he chooses to do So the Court must
hold him to his contract, but it will
not SO construe the contract unless
such clearly appears TO be the inten-
ton OF the parties.
In some cases, the Courts have
| held, from the nature or subject mat
ter of the contract, that the parties
must have intended thet the dis-
satisfaction should be reasonable in
order to Justify rescission. Duplex
Boiler Co. V. Garden, 101 n. Y.
397 alteration OF boilers); Miesell Y.
ms. Co, rs y. Y. lis physicians
certificate In life insurance case;
Braunstein VS.. ms. Co. B. & 5.
7S3 (proof of DEATH; Dallman v.
King, Bing n. g. los (repairs to
building). In such cases the parties
could not be restored to their former
position upon a rescission of the con-
tract; nor were the feelings, taste,
sensibility, personal convenience, or
individual preference, of one of the
parties involved.
In other cases the Courts have
held that the word ''satisfaction"
was similarly qualified by the other
words of the contract. See Sloan v.
Hayden, ITO Mass. 141 (service) and
the dissenting opinion of Bissell. j.,
in Bush v. Kohl, supra. In Daggett
V. Johnson, supra, the Court say, elf
a man orders a garment made of
given material and fashion, and
promises to pay If satisfied, he
cannot say that the garment,
in material and manufacture, is
according to the order, and yet refuse
to test the fit or pay for it," that is,
he cannot say he is dissatisfied in
any respect in which the rest of the
contract is complied with. In Doll
v. Noble, 116 n. Y, 230, work was to
be done upon a house sin the best
workmanlike manner = * and to the
entire satisfaction" of the party for
whom it was to be done. The Court
sustained the trial judge who charged
the jury, THAT while the CONT act
provided that it was to be done to the
owners satisfaction, that clause must
be regarded as qualified by the other
provisions of the contract that it was
to be done in the best workmanlike
manner; and that was the test of a
correct and full performance of the
contract" This is much like the case
at bar. The plaintiff was to conduct
the business in "skillful and proper
manner" as well as ''to the satisfac'
ton" of the Company. The reason
for holding that ordinarily in CON
tracts of this nature the reasonable
ness of the dissatisfaction of the
person who is to be satisfied cannot
be inquired into is, that he may be
satisfied with that which is poorly
done and dissatisfied with that which
is we'll done, and, therefore, to prove
that thing is we'll done is not equiv
alent to proving that it Is satisfactor-
ily done. This reason does not ap-
ply here, because a person cannot
work In a "skillful and proper man
ner" and "to the satisfaction" of an
other if that other may be satisfied on
ly with that which Is unskillfully and
improperly done. These two cove
nants must have the same meaning
or be inconsistent. An impossibility
is not required of the plaintiff and
could not have been contemplated by
the parties. If the covenants were
In the alternative Gas in Clark v. Rice.
46 Mich. 30S), they might have differ
emit meanings, and then it would be
sufficient if either were performed
Being in the conductive they must
same class. Taking the whole con
tract together, it is clear that
the object was to secure skillful and
proper work, not merely to crafty
unreasonable taste, sensibility or
preference. If the plaintiff did all
things required of him by the con-
tract in a skillful and proper manner,
the defendant Is bound to be salts
fed.
The demurrer is sustained on the
ground that the allegation of defend
ants breach is insufficient, as above
indicated, but overruled as to the
other points. The plaintiff should be
allowed to amend his complaint as
indicated, and the case is remanded
to the Circuit Court for such further
proceedings as may be proper.
G. Brown fer plaintiff; A. S. Hart
we'll and f. Nj. Hatch for defendant.
Honolulu, December IA, 1893.