The defendant denied liability under contract, after the vendor brought an action against against the committee of his estate as a person of unsound mind. He said that the fact that he was of unsound mind was known to vendor, and later that the vendor knew that he was infirm of mind and body and incapable of managing his affairs reasonably and properly, that the price was excessive, that he had no legal advice and that there was no reasonable degree of equality between the contracting parties.
Held: the first defence was a plea in law, the second raised a case for rescission in equity. ‘It is well settled that where the defendant in an action of contract sets up the defence of his insanity at the date of the contract he must, in order to succeed, show that the plaintiff knew of his insanity.’ The defendant had not shown that the company knew of the unsoundness of mind. As to te plea in equity: ‘In the result, after having carefully considered the whole of the evidence in support of this part of the case, I have come to the conclusion and hold as a fact that there was no want of fairness either in the terms of the contract itself or in the circumstances under which it was made, and I acquit all the persons concerned in the transaction on behalf of the plaintiff company from the charge made against them of having overreached or exercised any undue influence over the defendant.’
Citations:
[1924] 131 LT Rep 559
Cited by:
Appeal from – York Glass Co Ltd v Jubb CA 1925
The vendor sought to enforce a contract. The court had rejected the defendant’s plea first that the vendor knew of his incapacity, and that therefore the contract was void, and that second, the contract should not be enforced in equity because of . .
Cited – Archer 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 . .
Cited – Hart 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.252450