Wednesday, May 21, 2014
White v. Flora and Cherry case brief summary
-Flora is the grantee under a grant from the state of NC to property in TN
-Flora’s problem is that he doesn’t know where the land is; he hires White to go find it for him
-Deal is that if White finds the property, he gets half and the option to buy the other half
-White performs within a day, but Flora goes ahead and deeds the property to Cherry
-Cherry has a bond of indemnity from Flora
-White sues Flora and Cherry for the value of performance
-Flora raises two defenses:
1. Fraud: White knew where the land was but didn’t say so at the time of the contract
2. Inadequacy of Consideration: White’s performance wasn’t worth what Flora promised in exchange for it so the promise shouldn’t be enforced
-Could says no proof that White knew where the land was, and quite difficult to prove it anyway
-Holding on fraud is that there is no duty to disclose knowledge of market conditions when people have unequal knowledge
-Holding on inadequacy of consideration is that the function of contract law is to carry out the will of the parties, not to undertake an equitable revision of the agreement after the fact-Courts will not set aside contracts on fairness grounds
Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...