In all likelihood, plaintiff's shopping center venture was to be financed by a lender.  Before making the loan, the lender would require assurance of cash flow from shopping center lessees to the plaintiff that would be sufficient to service (i.e. make monthly payments on) the loan.  Thus, both Mattei and Hopper probably understood that "leases satisfactory to purchaser" in fact meant leases sufficient to assure the lender of adequate cash flow.  If this assumption is correct, would it not undermine the court's conclusion, later in the opinion, that the condition of satisfaction should be measured by plaintiff's good faith rather than what a reasonable person would find to be satisfactory?