Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1876

Zaleski v. Clark

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided December 15, 1876 · Carpenter

44 Conn. 218

Cases that cite this one

69 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Incomm, Inc. v. Thermo-Spa, Inc. (Connecticut Superior Court 1991)
Sanger v. Slayden (Tex. App. 1894)
Amalgamated Ass'n of Street Electric Railway v. Connecticut Co. (Conn. 1955)
Mackenzie v. Minis (Ga. 1909)
Glenny v. Lacy (City of New York Municipal Court 1888)
West 39th Street, LLC v. Lina, LLC (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)
Tursi v. Seaboard Marina, Inc., No. Cv93 052 63 97 (Jul. 25, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
Stafford-Higgins Ind. v. Millen Ind., No. Cv87 0242891 S (Oct. 6, 1992) (Connecticut Superior Court 1992)
Vending Credit Corp. v. Trudy Toys Co. (Conn. App. Ct. 1969)
Spanier v. Cartin (Conn. App. Ct. 1964)
Connecticut Union of Telephone Workers, Inc. v. Southern New England Telephone Co. (Conn. 1961)
Dolak v. Sullivan (Conn. 1958)
Chase Brass & Copper Co. v. Chase Brass & Copper Workers Union Local 1565 (Conn. 1953)
Continental Copper & Steel Industries, Inc. v. Bloom (Conn. 1953)
Russo v. Cesnutis (Connecticut Superior Court 1949)
Russo v. Cesnutis (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas 1949)
Codeanne v. Conn. Hard Rubber Co. (Connecticut Superior Court 1943)
Codeanne v. Connecticut Hard Rubber Co. (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas 1943)
Wolff v. Smith (Ill. App. Ct. 1940)
Van Demark v. California Home Extension Ass'n (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
George De Witt Shoe Co. v. Adkins (W. Va. 1919)
Hayes v. Kluge (N.J. 1914)
Farm Land Mortgage Co. v. Wilde (Okla. 1913)
Lumberman's National Bank v. Minor (Or. 1913)
Schmand v. Jandorf (Mich. 1913)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Carpenter, J.

Courts of law must allow parties to make their own contracts, and can enforce only such as they actually make. Whether the contract is wise or unwise, reasonable or unreasonable, is ordinarily an immaterial inquiry. The simple inquiry is, what is the contract? and has the plaintiff performed his part of it ? In this case the plaintiff undertook to make a bust which should be satisfactory to the defendant. The case shows that she was not satisfied with it. The plaintiff has not yet then fulfilled his contract. It is not enough to say that she ought to be satisfied with it, and that *224her dissatisfaction is unreasonable. She, and not the court, is entitled to judge of that. The contract was not to make one that she ought to be satisfied with, but to make one that she would be satisfied with. Nor is it sufficient to say that the bust was the very best thing of the kind that could possibly be produced. Such an article might not be satisfactory to the defendant, while one of inferior workmanship might be entirely satisfactory. A contract to produce a bust perfect in every respect, and one with which the defendant ought to be satisfied, is one thing; an undertaking to make one with which she will be satisfied is quite another thing. The former can only be determined by experts, or those whose education and habits of life qualify them to judge of such matters. The latter can only be determined by the defendant herself. It may have been unwise in the plaintiff to make such a contract, but having made it, he is bound by it. McCarren v. McNulty, 7 Gray, 139; Brown v. Foster, 113 Mass., 136.

It further appears that the plaintiff did not make this contract personally, but it was made through the agency of a Mrs. Johnson; and the court below has found that her representations as to the defendant’s “not being liable to take the bust unless it satisfied her, were made without any authority to make them from the plaintiff.”

It appears that she had a general authority to procure orders for the plaintiff. In the absence of any limitation of her power it would seem that she would be authorized to agree upon the terms of the contract; but conceding that she had no power to make such a contract as this is, we do not see how that circumstance will aid the plaintiff’s case. There was no other contract; and if this was unauthorized and not binding upon the plaintiff, then there was no special contract. If none, then, inasmuch as the defendant never accepted the bust, there was no sale and she is not liable.

A new trial is advised.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.