parent nodes: unconscionability
Seymour v Delancy
Facts
Ellison --> two farms to Seymour (worth ~$13K)
Seymour --> 1/3 interest in city lot (worth ~$5K) (of which Seymour owns remaining 2/3 interest)
Ellison is a drunk, possibly incapable of doing business at the time of contract
Ellison dies, survived by Delancey
Seymour sues for specific performance of the agreement
Analysis
As Ellison already owned 2/3 of the lot he traded for, specific performance is appropriate because Ellison could have valued the city lot at a higher price than the market price.
See unconscionability