INADEQUATE PRICE. A term applied to indicate the want of a sufficient considera tion for a thing sold, or such a price as, un der ordinary circumstances, would be con sidered insufficient.
Inadequacy of price is generally connect ed with fraud, gross misrepresentations, or an intentional concealment of defects in the thing sold. In these cases it is clear that the vendor cannot compel the buyer to fulfil the contract ; L. R. 12 Eq. 320; Will son v. Foree, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 110, 5 Am. Dec. 195; McFerran v. Taylor, 3 Cra. (U. S.) 270, 2 L. Ed. 436; Randle v. Harris, 6 Yerg. (Tenn.) 508; Sampson v. Swift, 11 Vt. 315; Hubbard v. 'Coolidge, 1 Mete. (Mass.) 93 ; Chick v. Trevett, 20 Me. 462, 37 Am. Dec. 68.
In general, however, inadequacy of price is not sufficient ground to avoid an exe cuted contract, particularly when the prop erty has been sold by auction ; 3 Bro. C. C. 228 ; Lee v. Kirby, 104 Mass. 420; if there is no fraud and the parties deal at arm's length, upon their independent judgment, it will be held good; Judge v. Wilkins, 19 Ala. 765 ; Nash v. Lull, 102 Mass. 60, 3 Am. Rep. 435; Williams v. Jensen, 75 Mo. 681. But if an uncertain consideration, as a life an nuity, be given for an estate, and the con tract be executory, equity, it seems, will en ter into the adequacy of the consideration; 7 Bro. P. C. 184. See Sugd. Vend. 189 ; 1 B.
& B. 165; McCants v. Bee, 1 McCord, Ch. (S. C.) 383, 16 Am. Dec. 610; Butler v. Haskell, 4 Des. Ch. (S. C.) 651; Powers v. Mayo, 97 Mass. 180. And if the price be so grossly inadequate and given under such cir cumstances as to afford a necessary presump tion of fraud or imposition, a court of equity will grant relief; Robinson v. Schly, 6 Ga. 515 ; Simonton v. Bacon, 49 Miss. 582; Wai ler v. Cralle, 8 B. Monr. (Ky.) 11; Stewart v. State, 2 Harr. & G. (Md.) 114; Bedel v. Loomis, 11 N. H. 9; Follett v. Rose, 3 Mc Lean 332, Fed. Cas. No. 4,900; Hoyt v. Inst. for Savings, 110 EL 390; Gainer v. Russ, 20 Fla. 157; Herron v. Herron, 71 Ia. 428, 32 N. W. 407 ; French v. Allen, 50 Me. 438; Grif fith v. Godey, 113 U. S. 89, 5 Sup. Ct. 383, 28 L. Ed. 934; Story, Eq. Jur. § 244 ; Leake, Contr. 1150. As to cases of sales of their in terests by heirs and reversioners for inade quate price, see CATCHING BARGAIN; Ex PECTANCY.
See CONSIDERATION; POST OBIT; MACEDO NIAN DECREE; JUDICIAL SALL