¶1Dissenting Opinion by
¶2I can reach no other conclusion than one which would impose the highest fiduciary obligation upon appellees. The purchaser (Sears) of the two tracts undoubtedly looks upon the transaction as a single acquisition with a single cost. The allocation of the gross cost between the owners of tract A and tract B requires delicate decision making, and demands that full disclosure be made to all interested parties. Here, this disclosure was not made. On the contrary, the only information or advice that appellees gave to appellant was that the sale price Avould be based on a per acre price of $34,000, when in reality the appellees subsequently received $204,000 for their acre.
¶3Where a buyer refuses to purchase joint venture property unless one of the parties to the joint venture will also agree to the sale of his individually owned real estate, Avhich real estate is adjacent to the jointly held land and essential to the buyer’s use of the jointly held land, then a sale may be consummated by the owner of the individually owned real estate only by making full disclosure to his partner of the entire transaction. Here full- disclosure was not made and some remedy is demanded.