商法Chapter 11.docVIP

ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS Anita and Barry were negotiating, and Anitas attorney prepared a long and carefully drawn contract, which was given to Barry for examination. Five days later and prior to its execution, Barrys eyes became so infected that it was impossible for him to read. Ten days thereafter and during the continuance of the illness, Anita called upon Barry and urged him to sign the contract, telling him that time was running out. Barry signed the contract despite the fact he was unable to read it. In a subsequent action by Anita, Barry claimed that the contract was not binding upon him because it was impossible for him to read and he did not know what it contained prior to his signing it. Should Barry be held to the contract? Answer: Fraud. Yes, decision in favor of Anita and against Barry. Barrys defense that the contract was not binding upon him because he had not and could not have read it prior to signing it is not valid. Here, there was no misrepresentation of the contents of the contract Barry was requested to sign. There is nothing approaching fraud upon the part of Anita. Upon the facts stated, Barrys inability to read the contract because of impaired vision does not afford him a defense where his signature to the contract was voluntary, and was not induced by fraud or misrepresentation. Moreover, Barry could not prove a defense based upon duress since Anita did not physically compel nor force Barry by threats to manifest assent to the proposal. Barry could easily have had someone read the contract to him, or have it reviewed by his attorney. (a) Johnson tells Davis that he paid $150,000 for his farm in 2001, and that he believes it is worth twice that at the present time. Relying upon these statements, Davis buys the farm from Johnson for $225,000. Johnson did pay $150,000 for the farm in 2001, but its value has increased only slightly, and it is presently not worth $300,000. On discovering this, Davis offers to reconvey the farm to Johnson an