The only question before this court is one of fact as to whether there has been a fair and reasonable determination by the committee administering the plan concerning payments to be made from the fund.

Noonan claims that we are bound by the Patton case, in which the Supreme Judicial Court held invalid a contractual clause giving a company president the sole authority to determine whether a fired employee would receive a deferred salary.

"It is contrary to natural right and fundamental principles of the common law for one to judge his own cause."

But petitioners conceded at oral argument that under Massachusetts law the companies could not have discharged him merely to avoid their obligation under the agreements, and the relevant cases support that conclusion.

However, under the law of Massachusetts, if he were discharged without cause his employer would not be relieved of the obligation of the contract since a corporation cannot avoid such an obligation by its own wrongful act.

It would be a travesty upon all ideas of judicial propriety or of judicial work for a man to be an arbitrator to settle the amount of his own liability "[citation omitted

—the court invalidated a provision in the defendant's "Plan" for the payment of deferred salaries that made the decision of the president final as to questions of interpretation or application of the Plan.