Inadequate Price

A term applied to indicate the want of a sufficient consideration for a thing sold, or such a price as, under ordinary circumstances, would be considered insufficient.

A term applied to indicate the want of a sufficient consideration for a thing sold, or such a price as, under ordinary circumstances, would be coned with fraud, gross misrepresentations, or an Intentional concealment of defects in the thing sold. In these cases it is clear that the vendor cannot compel the buyer to fulfil the contract: L. R. 12 Eq. 320; Willson V. Force, 6 Johns, (N. Y.) 110, 5 Am. Dec..195; Mc Ferran v. Taylor, 3 Cra. (U. S.) 270, 2 L. Ed. 436; Randle v. Harris, C Yerg. (Tenn.) 608; Sampson v. Swift, 11 Vt. 315; Hubbard v. Coolldge, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 93; Chick v. Trevett, 20 Me. 402, 37 Am. Dec. 68. In general, however, inadequacy of price is not sufficient ground to avoid an executed contract, particularly when the property has been sold by auction; 3 Bro, C. C. 228; Lee v. Kirby, 104 Mass. 420; if there is no fraud and the parties deal at arm’s length, upon their Independent judgment, it will be held good; Judge v. Wilkins, 19 Ala, 765; Nash v. Lull, 102 Mass. 00, 3 Am. Rep. 435; Williams v. Jensen, 75 Mo. 081. But If an uncertain consideration, as a life annuity, be given for an estate, and the contract be executory, equity, it seems, will enter into the adequacy of the consideration; 7 Bro. P. C. 184. See Sugd. Vend. 189; 1 B. & B. 166; Mc Cants v. Bee, 1 Mc Cord, Ch. (S. C.) 383, 16 Am. Dec. 610; Butler v. Haskell, 4 Des. Ch. (S. C.) 651; Powers v. Mayo, 97 Mass. 180. And if the price be so grossly Inadequate and given under such circumstances as to afford a necessary presumption of fraud or imposition, a court of equity will grant relief; Robinson v. Schly, 6 Ga. 615; Slmonton v. Bacon, 49 Miss. 582; Waller V. Cralle, 8 B. Monr. (Ky.) 11; Stewart V. State, 2 Harr. & G. (Md.) 114; Bedel v. Loomis, 11 N. H. 9; Follett v. Rose, 3 Mc- Lean 332, Fed. Cas. No. 4,900; Hoyt v, Inst, for Savings, 110 111. 390; Gainer v. Russ, 20 Fla. 157; Herron v. Herron, 71 la. 428, 32 N. W. 407; French y. Allen, 50 Me. 438; Griffith V. Godey, 113 U. S. 89, 5 Sup. Ct. 383, 28 L. Ed. 934; Story, Eq. Jur. § 244; Leake, Oontr. 1150. As to cases of sales of their interests by heirs and reversioners for inadequate price, see Catching Babgain; Expectancy. See Considebation; Post Obit; Macedonian Decbee; Judiciai- Sale.

A term applied to indicate the want of a sufficient consideration for a thing sold, or such a price as would ordinarily be entirely incommensurate with its intrinsic value. Slate v. Purcell, 131 Mo. 312, 33 S. W. 13; Stephens v. Ozboume, 107 Tenn. 572, 64 S. W. 903, 89 Am. St. Rep. 957.

Defined under Inadequate in Black's Law Dictionary.

A ferm applied to indicate the want of a sufficient consideration for a thing sold, or such a price as would ordinarily be entirely incommensurate with its intrinsic value.