American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

It is argued by amicus that the $ 10,000 to be paid Mrs. Whitehead is so low
as to be unconscionable. In counterpoint, it is stated that not all services can be
compensated by money. Millions of men and women work for each other in their
marital relationship. There may even be mutual inequality in the value of the work
performed but the benefits obtained from the relationship serve to reject the concept
of equating societal acts to a monetary balancing. Perhaps the risk was great for the
money to be paid but the risk was what Mrs. Whitehead chose to assume and at the
agreed upon fee. And it is assumed she received other intangible benefits and
satisfaction from doing what she did. Her original application set forth her highly
altruistic purpose. Notwithstanding amicus’ position, all in this world cannot be
equated to money.
It is defendants’ claim of unconscionability. They must show such unfairness,
overreaching, bargaining disparity or patent unfairness that no reasonable person
acting without duress would accept the contract terms. Toker v. Westerman, 113 N.J.
Super. 452, 454 (Cty. D. Ct.1970). This, defendants have failed to do.
Defendants next claim relief from the contract because the Whiteheads had no
attorney at the time they entered the contract. It is hornbook law that any person
who possesses legal capacity may be bound by a contract even when it is entered
without representation unless there is fraud, overreaching or undue influence which
caused the party to enter the contract.
It was Dr. Vetter, one of defendants’ own psychiatrists, who testified
unequivocally that the Whiteheads had legal capacity to contract. There were no
mental disabilities. They understood what they were doing. They understood the
contract terms. That there was capacity to contract was proven by a preponderance
of the credible evidence. Furthermore, Mr. Whitehead testified they signed the
contract at their New Jersey home because they did not wish to travel to New York.
Their prior counsel was available to them. They chose not to call him. It is well settled
that disparity of education or sophistication is not considered grounds for avoidance
of a contract. Dundee Chemical Works v. Connor, 46 N.J. Eq. 576 (E. & A.1890). In
Dundee, the adversaries were a homemaker-executrix and an attorney. The Court
held it would not weigh the disparate skills to void a contract. This leaves just fraud,
undue influence or illegality. As to the latter two factors this court says no evidence
has been shown of illegality or undue influence. This court has a sense that Mrs.
Whitehead would be a very difficult person to unduly influence once her mind is made
up.
As to the claim of fraud, defendants allege they may rescind the contract
because of the fraud perpetrated by plaintiffs. The court first defines the terms with
which we are to treat. Legal fraud has four elements: (1) a material misrepresentation
of a fact; (2) known to be false; (3) upon which a party relied; and (4) to its damage.
Equitable fraud eliminates the element of knowledge. Thus, even if the promisor did
not know of the fact being false, it would be inequitable to permit contractual recovery
and the injured party should be allowed the option to sustain the contract or rescind.
Jewish Center of Sussex County v. Whale, 86 N.J. 619 (1981).
______________________________________________________________________________
24 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION TO CONTRACT LAW