2xl

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Fry v Lane [1888] 40 Ch 312

Country:

United Kingdom

By Oxbridge Law Team

Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team

Updated 2024-01-04 07:00:31 UTC

Kay J

RELATED CASES

Plaintiffs were selling their interest in a property to Defendant and were being advised by Defendant’s solicitor.
Defendant then sold the property for vastly greater sum than he paid, and the court ordered that the release of Plaintiffs’ interest and that they be given the proportion of the proceed from the sale in proportion to their interests.

Kay J

Plaintiffs were “poor and ignorant”, had “no independent advice” and the sale was at an “undervalue”. He bases on his judgment on:
1. The vulnerability of Plaintiffs and
2. The substantive unfairness of the contract.
He says that although normally deals cant be set aside “merely on the grounds of undervalue”, they can where there is an “undervalue so gross as to suggest fraud”.
In such cases (weakness of Plaintiff and usury, extortion, taking advantage etc. by Defendant) there is a presumption of fraud which Defendant can overturn by showing the transaction to be “fair, just and reasonable” as in Aylesford.

Aylesford v Morris

Any comments or edits about this case?

Get in touch

About Oxbridge

Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.

We offer free case summaries, sample notes, and award-winning content, all curated and approved by our editorial team. Our reputation for excellence has led to features in The Guardian, Wikipedia, and the National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law).

Every year, millions of students utilize our free and premium notes to aid their studies.