A baker and a bride entered into a contract to bake a wedding cake for $2,500, with a clause that Baker's satisfaction of Bride's aesthetic expectations is an express condition on Bride's performance. The cake included caterpillars, causing Bride to refuse payment due to aversion. Should the court require Bride to pay?

• A. Yes, because the cake design complied with the requested butterfly theme.
• B. Yes, because the cake was delivered and accepted at the reception.
• C. No, because Bride was personally and honestly dissatisfied with the cake.
• D. No, because satisfaction is a subjective matter outside the contract terms.

Answer: (C)

The key idea is how a satisfaction clause is treated when the contract hinges on personal taste. When a contract provides that one party’s performance is “subject to the other party’s satisfaction” about aesthetics or personal preferences, the standard is typically subjective: the relevant party must act in good faith and honestly judge whether the performance meets their own taste. It’s not an automatic objective guarantee that the work met any external standard.

Here, the agreement makes the Baker’s satisfaction with Bride’s aesthetic expectations the condition for Bride’s payment. Because the cake offended Bride’s personal sensibilities—she is personally and honestly dissatisfied—the satisfaction condition is not met. Under a subjective standard, genuine dissatisfaction in good faith can defeat the condition, so Bride would not be obliged to pay.

A would be incorrect because objective compliance with a butterfly theme doesn’t address the subjective satisfaction requirement. B would be wrong since delivery and acceptance don’t override a satisfaction clause. D is incorrect because the contract explicitly uses a subjective satisfaction standard, so it isn’t outside the contract terms. C is the correct rationale.