Earl of Aylesford v Morris: 1873

One party to a contract knew of the other’s insanity.
Held: The contract of a lunatic is voidable not void. ‘Fraud’ in equity does not mean, and nor is it confined to, deceit; ‘it means an unconscientious use of power arising out of the circumstances and conditions’ of the contracting parties.

Judges:

Lord Selborne LC

Citations:

(1873) LR 8 Ch App 484

Cited by:

CitedFry v Lane, re Fry, Whittet v Bush CA 1889
Sales of reversionary interests at considerable undervalues by poor and ignorant persons were set aside. ‘The result of the decisions is that where a purchase is made from a poor and ignorant man at a considerable undervalue, the vendor having no . .
CitedPortman Building Society v Dusangh and Others CA 19-Apr-2000
The defendant sought to set aside an order for possession under a mortgage.
Held: Where a case was strong enough on its face in terms of conduct and terms, unconscionable conduct could be inferred if there was no explanation offered to . .
CitedHart v O’Connor PC 22-Apr-1985
Effect of insanity on making of contract
(New Zealand) The parties disputed the effect in law of an agreement for the sale of land. The transferor had proved not to be of sound mind.
Held: The validity of a contract entered into by a lunatic who is ostensibly sane is to be judged by . .
CitedArcher v Cutler 1980
(New Zealand) The purchaser of land sought specific performance of the contract. The vendor and purchaser had been neighbours. The neighbour needed part of the vendor’s land for access.
Held: A contract made by a person of insufficient mental . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.186679