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

width for and from the said premises and the road
To have hold of of said
lease, wit, until July 1s, 1895.
And the party of the second part for itself Its and
assigns agrees that during said viii deliver the party
the part slaugherng all hogs which may have
for slaughterine; and viii do saughtcrng Honolulu
employ others do provided said party of the first part per
forms the satisfactory the party of the
second part and viii pay the party of the first part the
forty o per head for each hog slaughtered the
be payable monthly; and will provide the necessary
feed for all of their hogs while on said premises.
And the party of the first part consideration aforesaid for
himself his executors administrators and assigns, agrees that
for the said price he will perform all the labor of feeding and
caring said hogs while his premises until slaughtered;
that he will furnish for said hogs and will bear all
pense while they said premises other than the of
feed and will slaughter all of such hogs he is directed to
slaughter skfu and wOrmanike and to the salts
faction party part he
may be directed; and further that during said time he
will allow slaugherng be done his premises at Iwlei
other than the hogs of the party of the second part.
And it is mutually agreed that in said +. f. Porter in
any respect fails carry his said agreements the satsfac
ton the party the second part that the party of the second
part continue occupy the above demd premises for the
above named paying the of three hundred and sixty
dollars per annum."
Subsequently another contract made as follows:
"IIonoluu, II. l., February IL
I'm consideration of VIM McCandless G. Winston
purchasing the eight (S shares held by in the Hawaiian
Pork Packing Co.. Ltd hereby grant them the privilege of
removing pig pens and other property belonging the above
company any that they may desire well all other
privileges regard right way, exist present in
accordance with my agreements made with the Hawaiian Pork
Packing Co., Ltd and further that in the event of the slaughter
ing of hogs being done the satisfaction of VIM McCmd
F. they shall be allowed conduct their
Strengthening business without any charge for of
premises provided that they shall conduct the other
premises those referred in last clause of dated
March TO- 1892.
(Sig) F. F. PORTER"
Defendant quit premises
discontinued delivering hogs to plaintiff aughtering
attempted justify by showing that plaintiff did
The question raised by the
ceptions is what significance has the word satisfaction in
these conacts2 1t is usually difficult
which be performed by the satisfaction of another
There that may be put upon such
contract according the other language and the subject matter
of the and the circumstances of the For instance
pointed out in Ra0tns e. Honolulu Soap Works Co.,
aw the word Satisfaction may be used in such general
way that especially it is coupled with other words of option,
the will be erminabe the will whm of the person
be satisfied The in question clearly not of that
character The parties evidently intended that good work should
be done by the plaintiff and that defendant exercise
option provided paragraph the first
that the second contract unless in its opinion the plaintiff
actually failed do good work. But while it is that de
PENDANTS performance merely OPTIONAL it does
sary follow that the whether could exercise the
options provided for the merely solely whether
the plaintiff did good If that then held
the Ras under the there involved the jury
would be the upon the question whether the work
done kfuy and properly and if they found it would
be equivalent finding that the defendant satisfied for
bound be satisfied if the work we'll done There
is third possible constructions intermediate between the
that the performance optional the of the party who
is be satisfied and the that performance required that
ones part unless the other fails good Under
good work required but the party who be
satisfied made sole Judge whether the work is good
Whether the work well done is be decided by the
the sole of whether the party satisfied The question
chatham vnatIa
ednot indeed whether he satisfied with the all
of TERMS but whether he IS satisfied that the itself
done in sklfu and wornanke required by the
Evidence would be admissible show
work well done for this would tend show whether
the party be satisfied in fact satisfied with
which the dnne he