The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1898-07-27

satisfaction of whims peculiar But the present
there than there that case show that
the defendant be sole Judge sasfacorine the
work. In the present the word "asactory
faction three times in the contract the
second, and in three of these instances unqualified
In the other instance it Is coupled with the sfu
worknanIke manner, used with slaugherine
of hogs There other things be done the plaintiff
besides Strengthening hogs, feeding watering
for them all Of which by the paragraph Of the first agree
ment the plaintiff to do TO defendants satisfaction without
express qualifications If only differences possibly
the contract in question could not be distinguished from
the R0tctns But there important differences
The RorIns primarily of employment,
the employee to perform his work in sklfu and workmanlike
and the satisfaction of the employer paid
much month therefor The present is primarily
lease, the consist of payments a
aughterng feeding watering and caring hogs but with
an agreement that tins work should be done all
respects the satisfaction lessee might pay
rent lump qudated certain per in lieu of
much hog. The last paragraph of the first expressly
provides for the exercise Of such option by the defendant
and the second contract made for considerations confirms
the view that the parties understood the first This
second releases defendant altogether in OF dssats
faction If defendant be sole Judge of whether the
work properly done, it IS difficult how could exercise
the option If the option could be exercised only in the
work in fact improperly done, that IS only in the
opinion of jury it improperly done the option would be
rendered practically nugaory But if it could be exercised
in in the opinion of the defendant the work improperly
done might be rendered effective The defendant would then
be required merely good faith and exercise its option
only when satisfied that the work was not properly done This
would be a somewhat definite condition upon which, if
occurred the option could be exercised But the option could
be exercised only condition that the properly
done in fact without providing how that be determined
the condition would be uncertain that the option would be of
little The parties apparently did intend that There
is uncertainty enough as it is.
The exceptions be Those
such rulings and instructions of the trial Judge based
theory that the options mentioned exercbe only
in the work done in proper without
reference whether done in the opinion Of the defend
ant, sustained
One of the exceptions taken the overrulng of de-
murrer the complaint In the complaint there general
allegation of performance which if standing alone might be
under the of this But the plaintiff
undertook in addition this to performance specifically
and in doing averred performance merely in kiul and
wok1nanlke Taking the complaint whole it
that there uncertainty what is relied per-
The plaintiff should be allowed amend the
plant this respect show performance required by
contract satisfaction of the defendant The other
points forth the properly overrued
A trial is ordered.
q. A. Daris for plaintiff
T. A. Mag0Oh and r. d. SiHiman for defendant.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDD. CT
While agree majority of the Court that the jury
instructed find whether the evidence show
the plaintiffs undertakings in the contract between the
parties fact executed by plaintiff to the satisfaction OF
defendant and charged by the Court that it for
jury determine whether the work done by plaintiff
good and workmanke manner and that if it done
defendant bound be satisfied with it, do not think
a new trial should be ordered.
plaintiff had the burden upon him and put evidence
show did the work contracted for good and work
Manner evidence the jury that defendant
dissatisfied with plaintiffs performance of the contract,
defendants refusal continue it. the ground of dis
satisfaction bona de; and trial the issue
90 the jury wit whether plaintiff had performed
properly evidence whether the defendant
satisfied with it. In opinion the direction of the
Court harmless
In TILE SUPREME C0TRT OLE THE HAWAIIAN