CONTRACTS--MUTUAL ASSENT--EFFECT OF INSANITY

Authors

Earl R. Boonstra, University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Defendant listed a hotel with plaintiff, a broker, who procured a purchaser. Defendant refused to sell and pleaded insanity in defense to an action for a commission. The jury was charged to hold for defendant if it found defendant mentally incapable of entering into the contract. On appeal from a judgment for defendant, held, the instruction was erroneous. The unadjudicated insanity of one of the parties is not sufficient reason for setting a contract aside where the executed contract was made in good faith, for a fair consideration, and without notice of infirmity, and if the parties cannot be restored to their original positions. Perper v. Edell, (Fla. 1948) 35 s: (2d) 387.

Recommended Citation

Earl R. Boonstra, CONTRACTS--MUTUAL ASSENT--EFFECT OF INSANITY, 47 Mich. L. Rev. 269 (1948).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol47/iss2/11