🏅 UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

Mattei v. Hopper

51 Cal. 2d 119 (Sup Ct. C.A. 1958)

tl;dr: Two parties agreed on a down payment for a tract of land. Then, one of them backed out of the deal. The other sued, claiming that there was no mutuality of obligation because of a "satisfaction clause" in their original agreement.

IRACIssue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

Facts & Holding

Facts:Mattei (Plaintiff) is a real estate developer who wanted to...

Holding:Reversed. Plaintiff formed an agreement with Defendant based on mutuality...

Mattei v. Hopper

Chat for Mattei v. Hopper
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you