## Facts

- An artist agreed to enlarge a small image of the defendant’s deceased daughter into a large portrait.
- The artist expressly promised the defendant would owe nothing unless he was completely satisfied with the portrait.
- When the finished portrait was presented, the defendant stated he did not like it and refused to accept it.
- The artist attempted modifications, but the defendant sent a letter stating he was dissatisfied, would not accept that or any similar portrait, and canceled the order.
- After further changes, the artist asked the defendant to view the revised portrait; the defendant refused to look at it.
- The artist sued to recover the contract price; the trial court entered judgment for the defendant.

## Issues

1. Under a contract requiring the purchaser’s satisfaction as a condition to payment for a portrait, is the purchaser the sole judge of satisfaction, such that an assertion of dissatisfaction defeats the artist’s claim for the price even if the portrait is objectively good?

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the defendant.
- The court enforced the satisfaction condition as written: the purchaser was not required to accept or pay unless satisfied.
- In a portrait commission, the buyer’s honest personal judgment controlled; objective quality was not determinative.
- With no showing of fraud or bad faith dissatisfaction, the artist could not recover the contract price.

## Legal Principles

- Where a contract lawfully makes payment conditional on the promisor’s satisfaction, that condition is enforceable according to its terms.
- In contracts involving personal taste or aesthetics (such as commissioned portraits), “satisfaction” is generally subjective: the promisee’s honest dissatisfaction permits rejection and defeats a claim for the price.
- Absent fraud, bad faith, or public-policy concerns, courts will not rewrite a bargain that allocates the risk of nonpayment to the party who proposed the satisfaction term.

## Conclusion

Because the parties agreed the defendant would pay only if he was satisfied with the portrait, and the record showed genuine dissatisfaction rather than fraud, the artist could not compel acceptance or recover the contract price.


Gibson v. Cranage, 39 Mich. 49 (Mich. 1878)