Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
1
Chapter 13
Genuineness of Assent and Undue Influence
VI. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases
13.1 Unilateral Mistake
Yes, Schultz can rescind the contract. A unilateral mistake occurs when only one party to a contract is
mistaken about a material fact regarding the subject matter of the contract. A mistake of fact includes a
mistake not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making the mistake and a belief
in the present existence of a thing material to the contract that does not exist. Generally, a mistaken party
will not be permitted to rescind a contract; however, a court will consider any burdens and hardships
imposed upon a party. In this case, the plaintiff believed he was purchasing land on which to build
13.2 Fraud
The Butners win and may recover for fraud against Deupree. Suppression of a material fact that a party is
under an obligation to communicate constitutes fraudulent concealment. This obligation depends on the
amounted to fraud, entitling the Butners to damages. Deupree v. Butner, 522 So.2d 242, 1988 Ala. Lexis
55 (Supreme Court of Alabama)
13.3 Undue Influence
Yes, the conservator of the estate can cancel the deed transferring the farm to Lawrence. The court found
that Conrad was subject to the influence of Lawrence, who was acting in a confidential relationship, that
the opportunity to exercise undue influence existed, there was a disposition on the part of Lawrence to
exercise such undue influence, and that the conveyance appeared to be the effect of such influence. The
2
13.4 Duress
entered into the agreement under such circumstances as to preclude a finding that her actions were the
product of her own free will. The contract was presented to her on a take it or leave basis under the threat
that she would not receive her property and that she would be prevented from seeing or communicating
with her children. With no funds, no clothes, no transportation, and no viable alternative, it is not
VII. Answer to Ethics Case
13.5 Ethics Case
the discretion to place the risk of this mistake upon Wells Fargo. This result seems harsh to Wells Fargo.
Nevertheless, Mr. Martin’s bid was accepted when the clerk announced ‘sold.’” The court of appeal held
that Wells Fargo’s unilateral mistake did not entitle it to relief from the judicial sale. Mr. Martin did not
act unethically in this case. He showed up at the judicial sale, heard the Wells Fargo bid, and then made a
