Hank owned a farm that was worth about 600 per acre By false

Hank owned a farm that was worth about $600 per acre. By false representations of fact, Hank induced Paul to buy the farm at $1,500 per acre. Shortly after taking n of the farm, Paul discovered oil under the land. Hank, on learning this demands that the sale set aside. English (US) Focus 30

Solution

Facts of the case: By false representation of the worth of land Hank induced Paul to buy the land at $1500 per acre.

Explanation: Though Hank knows the fact that land is worth $600 per acre he induced Paul to buy it for $1500 per acre. Thus he made a false representation of the facts of the land. Thus it can be said that Hank committed fraud. Paul has not given free consent as his consent was obtained by fraud. As per Law, a contract in which one party\'s consent is obtained by fraud the contract is voidable at the option of aggrieved party. That means Paul has the option either to validate the contract or rescind the contract. So as per above provisions Hank cannot demand that the sale to be set aside.

Conclusion: Hank claim to set aside the sale cannot be entertained and it is wholly at the option of Paul either to validate or set aside the sale.

PS: Please use \"Thums Up\" if you are contented with my solution and presentation.