203k views
5 votes
Walter contracts to purchase Marie's mansion and estate for 50,000. Marie's mansion and estate has a property tax value of 1 million. There is no fraud or undue influence involved in the transaction. Which of the following is an incorrect statement regarding the enforcement of this contract?

1) The consideration for the contract is the mansion.
2) The court will not question the value of the exchanged consideration.
3) The 50,000 is just as sufficient and valuable as a larger sum to support the legal enforcement of this contract.
4) The court will find the 50,000 an insufficient amount of consideration and cancel the contract.

User XtianGIS
by
6.8k points

1 Answer

0 votes

Final answer:

The incorrect statement regarding the enforcement of the contract is that the court will find the $50,000 an insufficient amount of consideration and cancel the contract. Courts typically do not assess the sufficiency of consideration as long as it is legally sufficient and there is no fraud or undue influence.

Step-by-step explanation:

The student has asked which of the following statements regarding the enforcement of a contract is incorrect. The contract in question involves Walter agreeing to purchase Marie's mansion and estate for $50,000, whereas the property tax value of Marie's mansion and estate is $1 million. It is stated that there is no fraud or undue influence in the transaction. The incorrect statement among the options provided is: "The court will find the $50,000 an insufficient amount of consideration and cancel the contract."

In contract law, as long as both parties agree to the terms and there is some form of consideration, which is anything of value exchanged between the parties, it is not up to the court to determine if the consideration is sufficient or not. This is known as the doctrine of 'adequacy of consideration', which means the court does not weigh whether the consideration is adequate as long as it is legally sufficient. The incorrect statement implies that the courts can assess the fairness of the contract terms, which they generally do not do unless there is evidence of fraud, coercion, or undue influence.

User Federico Malagoni
by
8.3k points