Multiple choice

A contract made without the free consent of one of the parties to it is voidable at its option.

David and Goliath agree to contract the deal. However, if David had known beforehand that there was a vein of ore on Goliath’s property, and then had made sure by undue use of his influence that Goliath did not come to know of it so that David could actually be able to buy the property at a much lower value than what the house would have been priced at. If properly assessed with the new discovery in mind, then would the nature of the contract change?

  1. It does not change the position as Goliath being the owner himself was not aware of the presence of the ore.

  2. Yes, the nature of the contract changes as this would constitute fraud on the part of David.

  3. No, the nature of the contract does not change as Goliath is not made to sell the property under any threat or force.

  4. The ore belongs to the government and the land should be handed over to the authorities.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

Option 1: No, Goliath was not kept aware as David had used his influence to ensure that he never came to know of the discovery or the real value of the house/property.

Option 2: The contract can at any time be deemed void by Goliath as Goliath's consent to the contractual price is based on his ignorance of the discovery of a rich resource on his property.

Option 3: No, still David exercised his influence to not lend any opportunity to Goliath to be able to know about the discovery of ore on his land.

Option 4: Yes, the ore being a mineral resource, belongs to the government. However, land/house/property is owned by Goliath and the government cannot seize it.

Keep practicing — related questions