Jackson v. Seymour
- P is D's sister. D helped P run her farm after the death of P's husband.
- P approached D about selling 31 acres of land to D since P was in need of money. D did not want to buy the property but did so because of P's need for money. Paid $275.
- D found after buying the land that it had valuable timber on it. He cut and sold the timber for $2,353.42.
- P had never seen the land and knew nothing of the timber on it. When P found out, she demanded to know how much money D had sold the timber for.
- Lower court ruled for D. Said there was no actual fraud.
- Can a K willingly entered upon and understood by both parties be thrown out?
- Does the relationship between the signers of the K affect its enforceability?
- Does the court have a duty to remedy unfair Ks? (equity)
- When the inadequacy of price in a K is so great, it can be considered constructive fraud and the K can be vacated.
- Elements of constructive fraud were present.
- The confidential relation of the parties
- The reliance by the plaintiff upon the advice and judgment of the defendant in her business affairs
- The gross inadequacy of the price paid
- Her offer to restore the purchase price and rescind the transaction
- His rejection of the offer
- Gross inadequacy of consideration
- Mutual mistake
- None offered.
- In this case, the Court simply wanted to make the D give money to the P. They created an argument to make it stick, one that wasn't present at all in the case presented at trial.
- Characterization plays an important role in lawyering.
- Cases fall into different categories of law (decided upon by lawyers), then we can begin analysis of how to approach the case based upon the category.