Hardesty v. Smith
3 Ind. 39 (1851) (1851)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a party receives the full consideration they bargained for, they cannot later claim a failure of consideration to void the contract merely because the item purchased proves to be of no value, provided there was no fraud, warranty, or mistake of fact.
Facts:
- Smith purchased from Cyrus Isham the exclusive right to make, use, and vend a patented 'supposed improvement in the lamp.'
- In exchange for this right, Smith executed sealed promissory notes, made payable to Artemis Wood.
- The notes were subsequently assigned from Wood to Isham, and then from Isham to Hardesty.
- Smith later concluded that the lamp improvement was of no value whatsoever.
Procedural Posture:
- Hardesty filed a suit in a trial court against Smith to collect on sealed promissory notes.
- Smith pleaded two defenses: first, a failure of consideration because the purchased lamp patent right was worthless, and second, fraudulent misrepresentation.
- Hardesty demurred to both pleas, arguing they were legally insufficient as defenses.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer to the fraud plea but overruled the demurrer to the failure of consideration plea.
- Based on the validity of the first plea, the trial court entered a final judgment for the defendant, Smith.
- The plaintiff, Hardesty, appealed the trial court's ruling that the worthlessness of the invention was a valid defense.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the fact that an invention, for which a patent right was sold, is of no value or utility constitute a valid defense of failure of consideration against a suit to collect on notes given for that right, absent any fraud or warranty?
Opinions:
Majority - Perkins, J.
No, the simple fact that the improvement in the lamp was of no utility is not sufficient to bar a suit on the notes. Parties with sufficient mental capacity have the right to make their own bargains, and a buyer's own judgment is the best guide as to an item's value. Consideration does not have to be adequate; any detriment to the seller (parting with a right) or benefit to the buyer (obtaining the right) is legally sufficient. Smith received exactly what he contracted for—the exclusive right to the invention—and in the absence of fraud or warranty, he is estopped from later claiming it was worthless. To allow a court to annul a bargain based on its own assessment of value would undermine the freedom of contract and put all commercial dealings on an uncertain footing.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental contract law principle that courts will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration. It establishes that as long as the consideration is legally sufficient (i.e., a bargained-for legal right), its subsequent practical or market worthlessness is irrelevant to the contract's enforceability. This precedent solidifies the concept of 'freedom of contract,' placing the risk of a bad bargain squarely on the purchaser who relies on their own judgment. It prevents parties from escaping their contractual obligations simply due to buyer's remorse or a failed investment, thereby promoting stability and predictability in commercial transactions.
Unlock the full brief for Hardesty v. Smith