Misplaced Pages

Fry v Lane

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Undue influence and exploitation

Fry v Lane
Citation(1888) 40 ChD 312, All ER Rep 1084
Case opinions
Kay J
Keywords
Undue influence

Fry v Lane (1888) 40 ChD 312 is an English contract law case relating to exploitation of weakness, allowing escape from a contract.

Facts

JB and George Fry worked as a plumber and laundryman, earning £1 a week. But they had the reversion of their uncle's estate, subject to the life tenancy of their aunt. They sold it in 1878 to Mr Lane for £170 and £270 respectively. They were advised by an inexperienced solicitor who also acted for Mr Lane. When the aunt died in 1886, the interests were each worth £730, and in 1878 it would have been £475.

Judgment

Kay J cited two cases, Evans v Llewellin and Haygarth v Wearing, saying that equity most commonly interferes in favour of an expectant heir, in his youth, or "a poor man with imperfect education". Where such circumstances are shown, the onus is on the purchaser to show it was "fair, just and reasonable" (Lord Selborne LC, Aylesford). The undervalue was "so gross as to amount of itself to evidence of fraud".

See also

Duress cases
Barton v Armstrong
Astley v Reyonds
Skeate v Beale
The Atlantic Baron QB 705
Pao On v Lau Yiu Long
Universe Tankships Inc. of Monrovia v. International Transport Workers' Federation
B&S Contracts and Design Ltd v Victor Green Publications Ltd
Crescendo Management Pty Ltd v Westpact Banking Corp
Dimskal Shipping Co SA v International Transport Workers' Federation
Huyton SA v Peter Cremer GmbH & Co
R v Attorney General for England and Wales
Williams v Bayley
Silsbee v Webber
Mutual Finance Ltd v John Wetton & Sons Ltd
Norreys v Zeffert
English unjust enrichment and unconscionability in English law

References

  1. (1787) 1 Cox 333
  2. Law Rep. 12 Eq 320
  3. (1888) 40 Ch D 312, 321
Categories: