Where it is a term of the contract that the performance shall be satisfactory to the other party, it is a question of interpretation whether his obligation is conditional upon actual satisfaction or reasonable satisfaction. In contracts in which the subject-matter involves the personal taste or judgment of the promisor,78 for example, a suit of clothes,74 a picture,75 a play, or other literary production,76 the courts construe the contract as making the promisor the sole judge; and although the compensation of the promisee may thus be dependent on the promisor, who unrea-sonably withholds his satisfaction, the promisee cannot be relieved from the contract into which he has voluntarily entered. The tendency of the courts is perhaps to construe all contracts providing for the satisfaction of the promisor in the same manner.77 The promisor must, however, act in good faith.78 On the other hand, the parties may agree that the satisfactoriness may be determined by the mind of a reasonable man, and not by the mere taste or liking of the promisor;79 and where the subject-matter of the contract involves such considerations as salability, operative fitness, and mechanical utility, rather than personal feeling or taste, many courts construe the satisfaction contemplated as that of a reasonable man.80 And some cases even lay down the broad rule that where a contract is to be performed to the satisfaction of one of the parties, the meaning necessarily is that it must be done to the satisfaction of the mind of a reasonable man.81 It seems, however, that the question in each case should be the determination of the intention of the parties as evinced by the

70 Gillis v. Cobe, 177 Mass. 5S4, 59 N. E. 455. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 295; Cent. Dig. §§ 1352-1862.

71 See Kelly v. Town of Bradford. 33 Vt. 35; Pinches v. Lutheran Church. 55 Conn. 185, 10 Atl. 264; Norwood v. Lathrop, 178 Mass. 208, 59 N. E. 650. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 295; Cent. Dig. §§ 1352-1362.

72 Foeller v. Heintz, 137 Wis. 169, 118 N. W. 543, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 327. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 295; Cent. Dig. §§ 1352-1362.

73Andrews v. Belfield, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 779; McCarren v. McNulty, 7 Gray (Mass.) 139; McClure v. Briggs, 58 Vt 82, 2 Atl. 583, 56 Am. Rep. 557; Hawkins v. Graham, 149 Mass. 284, 21 N. E. 312, 14 Am. St. Rep. 422; Hous-ding v. Solomon, 127 Mich. 654, 87 N. W. 57. See "Contracts" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 1284-1289.

74Brown v. Foster, 113 Mass. 136, 18 Am. Rep. 463. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 1284-1289.

75 Gibson v. Cranage, 39 Mich. 49, 33 Am. Rep. 351; Zaleski v. Clark, 44 Conn. 218, 26 Am. Rep. 446; PENNINGTON v. ROWLAND, 21 R. I. 65, 41 Atl. 891,79 Am. St. Rep. 774, Thockmorton Cas. Contracts, 370. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 1284,-1289.

76 Haven v. Russell (Sup.) 34 N. Y. Supp. 292; Walker v. Edward Thompson Co., 37 App. Div. 536, 56 N. Y. Supp. 326. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 1284-1289.

77 Seeley v. Welles, 120 Pa. 69, 13 Atl. 736; Adams Radiator & Boiler Works v. Schnader, 155 Pa. 394, 26 Atl. 745, 35 Am. St Rep. 893; Silsby Mfg. Co. v. Town of Chico (C. C.) 24 Fed. 893: Campbell Printing-Press Co. v. Thorp (C. C.) 36 Fed. 414, 1 L. R. A. 645; Wood Reaping & Mowing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 50 Mich. 565, 15 N. W. 906, 45 Am. Rep. 57; McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Chesrown, 33 Minn. 32. 21 N. W. 846; Exhaust Ventilator Co. v. Railroad Co., 66 Wis. 218, 28 N. W. 343, 57 Am. Rep. 257; Blaine v. Publishers George Knapp & Co., 140 Mo. 241, 41 S. W. 787; Williams Mfg. Co. v. Brass Co., 173 Mass. 356, 53 N. E. 862. Contract for personal services. Beissel v. Vermillion Farmers' Elevator Co., 102 Minn. 229, 113 N. W. 575, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 403 and note; Mackenzie v. Minis, 132 Ga. 323, 63 S. E. 900, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1003, 16 Ann. Cas. 723. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 1281,-1289.

78 Andrews v. Belfield, 2 C. B. N. S. 779; Stodhard v. Lee, 3 Best & S. 364, 32 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 75; Silsby Mfg. Co. v. Town of Chico (C. C.) 24 Fed. 893; Singerly v. Thayer, 108 Pa. 291, 2 Atl. 230, 56 Am. Rep. 207; Electric Lighting Co. of Mobile v. Elder, 115 Ala. 138, 21 South. 983; Crawford v. Mail & Exp. Pub. Co., 9 App. Div. 481, 41 N. Y. Supp. 325. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 1284-1289.

79 Hawkins v. Graham, 149 Mass. 284, 21 N. E. 312, 14 Am. St. Rep. 422. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 1284-1289.

80 Wood Reaping & Mowing Mach. Co. v. Smith, 50 Mich. 565, 15 N. W. 906, 908, 45 Am. Rep. 57; Schliess v. City of Grand Rapids, 131 Mich. 52, 90 N. W. 700. And see Duplex Safety Boiler Co. v. Garden, 101 N. Y. 387, 4 N. E. 749, 54 Am. Rep. 709. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 1284-1289.

81 Keeler v. Clifford, 165 111. 544, 46 N. E. 248; Richison v. Mead, 11 S. D. 639, 80 N. W. 131. And see Doll v. Noble, 116 N. Y. 230, 22 N. E. 406, 5 L. R. A. 554, 15 Am. St Rep. 398. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 282; Cent. Dig. §§ 1284-1289.

particular contract, and that no invariable rules of interpretation can be laid down.82