Omni Group Inc V. Seattle First National Bank by wcf20370


More Info
									Karl Connolly

Omni Group, Inc v. Seattle –First National Bank

In contract law, an illusory promise is one that courts will not enforce. This is in contrast with a
contract, which is a promise that courts will enforce. A promise may be illusory for a number of reasons.
In common law countries this usually results from failure or lack of consideration
Illusory promises are so named because they merely hold the illusion of contract. For example, a
promise of the form, "I will give you ten dollars if I feel like it," is purely illusory and will not be enforced
as a contract.

Plaintiff (appellant) Omni Group inc
Defendant (Appellee) Seatle First national Bankk
Trial judge entered judgement for the defendant , the plaintiff appeals

Husband and wife the Clarkes listed their land with a company called royal co for sale of 59 acres, The
broker offered the property to Omni a development company. The parties signed a earnest money
agreement subject to an engineer’s satisfactory report of the feasibility of the land for development.
This act was deemed to have rendered its promise to by illusory by the trial court.
Whether the personal satisfaction clause in the agreement cause it so be illusory and therefore not

On appeal the court reversed and concluded that the developer’s promise was not illusory

The court found that ther money agreement created two conditions precedent to the develeopers duty
to buy the property/
1. It had to receive a report to sate that the land was satisfactory. The court found that the evaluation
process and standards of the developers satisfaction was good faith. The developer could only cancel
the contract if it were not satisfactory otherwise it had to give notice to buy the property. Therefore the
contract was not illusory and the earnest money agreement was supported by consideration.
2. That the owners agents failed to convey certain additional terms of the contract did not affect the
validity of the agreement

Was there consideration? Yes as there was good faith

A promise for a promise is sufficient consideration to support a contract. E.g., Cook v. Johnson. . . . If,
however, a promise is illusory, there is no consideration and therefore no enforceable contract between
the parties. Interchange Assocs. v. Interchange, Inc. . . . Consequently, a party cannot create an
enforceable contract by waiving the condition which renders his promise illusory. But that a promise
given for a promise is dependent upon a condition does not necessarily render it illusory or affect its
validity as consideration. .

To top