Introduction
Mr. Bibe is the client in this case and he needs advice concerning a contract he got into with his co-worker Lotts. Mr. Bibe has an intention of buying a business and his co –worker is aware. Lotts uses the opportunity when the two are drinking to bring out the business and has Mr. Bibe sign the contract in which he is obligated to buy the business presented to him. After signing the contract, while at home Mr. Bibe gives it a second thought and realizes that he has made a mistake. This is because he thinks that he does not want to purchase the business. It is from this base that he needs legal advice on whether he is bound by the contract or not.
Issue statement
Is Mr. Bibe bound by the contract he was made to sign while he was quickly presented with information when they were drinking with the co-worker?
Discussion
For the case of Mr. Bibe the relevant statute “A person entirely without understanding has no power to make a contract of any kind, but the person is liable for the reasonable value of things furnished to the person necessary for the support of the person or the person’s family.”If indeed Lotts used the opportunity when Mr. Bibe had consumed some alcohol, to make him sign a contract he might not have signed in a sober mind, then this statute is applicable.
In the case Donnelly v. Rees, 74 P. 433 (Cal. 1903) ,the plaintiff who is the sole heir of Patrick Kean in this suit seeks setting a side the deed for a land that was fraudulently obtained by Ree, the defendant.
According to the case, at the time of the transaction, Kean was a habitual drunkard and was not fit to carry out such a contract. Patrick Kean was the owner of half interests in the mining claims in this case. The defendant, without consideration of the state of mind of Kean, fraudulently procured the deed of conveyance from him. The defendant in this case has been described in this case to have used undue influence or his own tactics to lure Kean into the deed transaction that made him loose the property.
Under the law, an individual is not supposed to be influenced by other means other than his knowledge into signing such contracts. According to the Plaintiff, the condition of Kean at the time of the procurement was not fit. This is because of the fact that he was under the influence of alcohol. This is likely to have made him give out the property when in the real sense he would not have one it. Based on the fact that the deed was acquired through fraudulent means, the plaintiff has the right under the law to recover the property. The land has to be taken away from the defendant because he is an involuntary trustee.
According to Guidici v. Guidici, 41 P.2d 932 (Cal. 1935) case, the Plaintiff took action to cancel a deed set aside to some real estate in favor of the defendant. The signing and execution was done when the plaintiff married the defendant. It has been mentioned in the case that the plaintiff was under influence of intoxicating liquor at the time the signing and execution of the deed was undertaken. The deed was therefore transacted while putting the marriage between the two into consideration. The defendant admits to marrying the plaintiff as a business preposition. Various witnesses including neighbors have been mentioned to have seen the plaintiff in an alcoholic state in the past. It is very clear that the defendant used undue influence to make the plaintiff sign and execute the deed to the real estate. The day he signed the documents, he was not in a sober state of mind.
According to the evidence provided by neighbors, the plaintiff was observed in several occasions under great influence of alcohol. Therefore it is right for the judgment to be affirmed that the deed be cancelled. Based on the fact that the signing of the deed was a precondition for the defendant to marry the plaintiff, it becomes well known that she had malicious intentions. This therefore makes the marriage not to be a valid consideration for the signing and execution of the deed. Hence the plaintiff is rightful in recovering the property as protected by the law.
In the case Marron v. Maron, 125 P. 914 (Cal. App. 1912), plaintiff is the wife to a man who transferred the control of his property to her mother. As argued by the plaintiff the defendant took advantage of the drunkard state of her deceased husband to carry out all the transactions as she remained in seclusion despite the fact that she was the wife to the deceased man. Thomas Marron was the owner of the property and he had conveyed the control to her mother Mary Marron. He died three months after the transaction. His wife , the Plaintiff and the appointed administratrix of the property has taken the action to set aside the deed and the bill of sale of the properties. According to the facts of the case, Thomas Marron was irrational and not in a good state of mind when he made the transaction involving the deed and bill of sale of the properties. As the appointed administratrix of the property he has a say on the control and sale of the property. Since the Mary Marron had used undue influence to make her sign the transactions, it is against the law. As indicated, the deceased was under alcohol influence for a number of years and on the very day that her mother accepted the instruments, he was drunk and not in a sound state of mind. Therefore undue influence or imposition is present in this case. Therefore the wife is justified in claiming back the property.
Taking a look at Swan v. Talbot, 94 P. 238 (Cal. 1907) ,Swan is the plaintiff and he sued Talbot for the cancellation and rescission of the bill of sale he had executed to the defender which led to the possession of his personal property. Swan wishes to posses the property back or be compensated for the value of the property. The plaintiff needs his property back because he feels that at the time of the execution, he was not in sober mind. This was as a result of his alcohol intake. Considering this case, it is vital to mention that the defendant took advantage of the intoxication of the plaintiff to make him execute the bill of sale that made him posse’s property of high value. This is very clear case of using undue influence against the wishes of the plaintiff.
At the time the plaintiff was executing the Bill of sale he was so drunk as evidenced by some of the witnesses in this case. Besides lacking the capacity to make such a decision the plaintiff argues that the defendant had an affair with his wife. This can help to add on the fact that the defendant used his tactics that are unfair to have the plaintiff append his signature on the Bill of sale of the said property. Going by the evidence that was provided in this case it was clear that the defendant had obtained possession of the highly valued property using fraudulent means.
In the case Phelan v. Gardner, 43 Cal. 306 (1872), the defendant who was a broker had sued the owner of a land that had been sold for failing to pay him commissions. The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant as a broker to sell a piece of land at an agreed commission of 5% of the amount of sale. After procuring a buyer who agreed verbally with the defendant the land was sold to another party. This action of the defendant was against the procured buyer and the plaintiff according to their initial agreement. In this case the evidence provided by the plaintiff was insufficient to prove that he was entitled to the commissions for which he sued.
The plaintiff had not been given an exclusive right by the defendant to sell the land therefore it was upon the wish of the defendant to act as he pleased or wished even before the plaintiff could bring the purchaser as they had agreed before. The main issue in this case concerned the mental tale of the plaintiff during the time of contracting. It was argued in the evidence that the plaintiff was under intoxication when he signed the receipts but this conflicted with other evidence that indicated that he was sober until the evening after signing the receipt.
Conclusion
A critical look at all the cases has revealed that they are all referring to the use of undue influence to make other people to get into contracts that require them to give money or property to other parties. It is clear that at the time when Mr. Bibe ws signing the contract, he was not in a sober mind because of the alcohol he had been drinking. This is a case of undue influence as compared to the other cases that have been analyzed. In this case therefore Mr. Bibe can under the law seek a cancellation of the contract on the grounds that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor when his friend Lotts made him sign the contract requiring him to purchase the said business. In such a case after considering the evidence, a ruling can be done in favor of Mr. Bibe because his friend Lotts would be considered to have used undue influence or unfair tactics to make Mr. Bibe sign the contract. According to the statute, Mr. Bibe had no power to sign the contract because he lacked sufficient knowledge about what he was signing considering his alcoholic state.