A party has the liberty to prove that at the time of the judgment, he did not have the capacity to make a contract prudently “by reason of intoxication several hours after the settlement” as stated by Phelan court. Phelan at 306. Another important factor to be considered while making a contract is transparency. The Marron v. Marron court, 125 P. 914 (California, 1912), “inadequacy of consideration of a drunkard’s contract or its manifest unfairness is a weighty factor in securing the annulment of such contract in equity”. Equity does not support fraudulent imposition while signing a contract.
Substantial evidence of imposition is enough to justify the fact that there was interference of equity. If either one of the parties was intoxicated, “inadequacy of price is a direct evidence of fraud hence; there is need of equity to annul the grant” according to the Marron court and also as stated in the Swan v. Talbot court, 94 P. 238. (California, 1907). The Guidici v. Guidici court, 41 P. 2d 932 (California, 1935) has stated that, when one’s ability to reason and understand is impaired as a result of drunkenness, he or she is considered to be incapable of consenting to the terms of a contract.
Such people are likened with those who lack the mental capacity due to insanity or stupidity. A person deemed to be completely intoxicated is regarded as one without a sound mind even though the intoxication is voluntary and not because of the other party’s contrivance. In the court of Donnelly v. Rees, 74 P. 433 (California, 1903), a contract can be set aside owing to the fact that either one of the parties was intoxicated at the time of signing the contract hence rendering them unfit to engage in any transaction of any kind.
This is because such a person is incapable of attending to, realizing or understanding the concepts entailed in the transaction. CONCLUSION From the information derived from our client, Mr. Bibe’s pleading, there is the signed contract. The question is whether Mr. Bibe was of sound mind and if the value put down is equivalent to the value of the premise to be sold. Mr. Bibe’s pleading clearly indicates that he did not have the mental capacity to understand, consent to, realize and attend to the contract. Mr. Bibe can prove that he was intoxicated at the time because, by the time he came to us, it was only five hours late. In addition, evidence of fraudulence can be indicated by performing an evaluation of the premise and comparing it with the price allocated for it in the contract.
However, a clearer picture of the specific events that occurred at that time need to be taken into focus by interviewing the people who were present during the signing of the contract. References Donnelly, W. K. v. Rees, D. W. & O’Brien, T. 74 P. 433. (1903). Action by Heir to Set Aside Deed—Fraud and undue Influence upon Habitual Drunkard.
California. Guidici, Q. C. v. Guidici, N. M. 41 P. 2d 932. (1935). Cancellation of Instruments—Unsound Mind—Voidable Contracts. California. Marron, N. v. Marron, M & Marron, P. J. 125 P. 914. (1912). Action to Set Aside Deed— Mental Incompetency of Grantor—Fraud and Undue Influence—Error in Granting Nonsuit—Burden of Proof. California. Phelan, T. v. Gardner, J. 1872 WL 1161 (Cal. ). (1872). Broker’s Commission on Sale of Land. California. Swan, G. v. Talbot, J. R. 94 P. 238. (1907). Contract of Drunkard—When Equity will Set Aside. California.