Question

Campbell v. Carr

603 S.E.2d 625, Web 2004 S.C. App. Lexis 276 (2004)

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

“This inadequate consideration combined with Carr’s weakness of mind, due to her schizophrenia and depression, makes it inequitable to order specific performance.”

—Anderson, Judge

Facts

Martha M. Carr suffered from schizophrenia and depression. Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder that is characterized by disturbances in perception, inferential thinking, delusions, hallucinations, and grossly disorganized behavior. Depression is characterized by altered moods and diminished ability to think or concentrate. Carr was taking prescription drugs for her mental diseases. Carr, a resident of New York, inherited from her mother a 108-acre tract of unimproved land in South Carolina. Carr contacted Raymond C. and Betty Campbell (Campbell), who had leased the property for 30 years, about selling the property to them. Carr asked Campbell how much the property was worth, and Campbell told Carr $54,000. Carr and Campbell entered into a written contract for $54,000. Campbell paid Carr earnest money. Carr subsequently missed the closing day for the sale of the property, returned the earnest money, and refused to sell the property to Campbell. Campbell sued Carr to obtain a court judgment ordering Carr to specifically perform the contract. At trial, evidence and expert witness testimony placed the value of the property at $162,000. Testimony showed that Campbell knew the value of the property exceeded $54,000. The court agreed with Campbell and ordered Carr to specifically perform the contract. Carr appealed.

Issue

Does Carr, because of her mental diseases of schizophrenia and depression, lack the mental capacity to enter into the contract with Campbell?

Language of the Court

This inadequate consideration combined with Carr’s weakness of mind, due to her schizophrenia and depression, makes it inequitable to order specific performance.

Decision

The court of appeals held that Carr’s mental diseases of schizophrenia and depression affected her ability to make an informed decision regarding the sale of the property. The court held that Carr did not have to sell her property to Campbell.

Ethics Questions

Should Carr have been relieved of her contracts? Did the Campbells act unethically in this case?

Answer 1

1. Yes, in my opinion Carr, because of her mental diseases of schizophrenia and depression, lacked the mental capacity to enter into the contract with Campbell. Carr did not act in her senses while negotiating with Campbell for the price of the property and undervalued it very much. Since Carr was mentally ill and disoriented, hence she lacked the capability to enter into a contract with Campbell and should be excluded from performing any contract.

2. Yes Carr should have been relieved of her contracts since she was not mentally sound to enter into a contract with any party and was suffering from schizophrenia and depression due to which she could not take decisions soundly. In my opinion, Campbells acted unethically in this case since they already knew the mental condition of Carr and also knew the value of the property. However they still went on to enter into a contract with Carr for much lower value than the actual value of the property. This was unethical on their part and should have been avoided at all costs.