Fry 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 independent advice, a Court of Equity will set aside the transaction. This will be done even in the case of property in possession, and a fortiori if the interest be reversionary. The circumstances of poverty and ignorance of the vendor, and absence of independent advice, throw upon the purchaser, when the transaction is impeached, the onus of proving, in Lord Selborne’s words, that the purchase was `fair, just, and reasonable’.’


Kay J


(1889) 40 Ch D 312, [1886-90] All ER Rep 1084


England and Wales


Appeal fromFry v Lane QBD 1888
A court should be ready to set aside unconscionable transactions with ‘poor and ignorant persons’ where there had been no independent advice. . .
CitedEarl 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 . .

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.186678