Wednesday, May 21, 2014

White v. Flora and Cherry case brief summary

White v. Flora and Cherry


-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

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Ins and Outs of Class Action Lawsuits: A Comprehensive Guide

Sometimes, you may buy a product only to find it defective. To make it worse, your search for the product reveals mass complaints. You can ...