Hart v O’Connor [1985] AC 1000
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:00:30 UTC
X farmed a land with Plaintiffs and was the sole trustee. He sold the land to Defendant but, unbeknown to Defendant, was of unsound mind.
Plaintiffs sought to have the agreement set aside on the ground of equitable fraud.
Privy Council denied this, as the same standards of equitable fraud applied to a person who was ostensibly sane to a person who was in fact sane. There was nothing wrong with Defendant’s conduct. There was no unconscionable bargain since there was no taking advantage etc.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Boustany v Pigott
Plaintiff leased a property to Defendant, whose affairs were managed by her brother, X, since she was “quite slow”. When X was away, Plaintiff got a lawyer to draw up a new lease at a much higher ren...
Bisset v Wilkinson
Defendant sold Plaintiff land for farming, stating that the believed that the land could carry 2000 sheep when in fact it was less than this. Privy Council held that this was an honest statement of o...
Rochefoucauld v Boustead
Plaintiff owned lands subject to a mortgage. The mortgagee sold them to Defendant as trustee for the Plaintiff, but failed to put the trusts part in writing, as the statute of frauds required. As a r...
Lyus v Prowsa
X had mortgaged land to Y before giving a right over it to Plaintiff. The right was not registered and not overriding. Nevertheless, Y, after repossession, decided to sell to Defendant subject to an...
Fry v Lane
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...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.