Hill-Shaffer Partnership V. Chilson Family Trust
Essay Preview: Hill-Shaffer Partnership V. Chilson Family Trust
Report this essay
Hill-Shaffer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust
799 P.2d 810 (Arizona 1990)
Text pg. 177, E-Text pg. 456
Issue: Whether a rescission of a real estate purchase contract on grounds of lack of mutual assent is prohibited because the misunderstanding relates to a legal description of land?
Rule: The legal rule states ÐЎЧmutual assent requires that the ÐЎЧmindsÐÐŽÐÐ of contracting parties must ÐЎЧmeetÐÐŽÐÐ before a contract exists. Two parties may sign a piece of paper called a ÐЎЧcontractÐÐŽÐÐ, but if each believes the contract involves something
different, there is no mutual assent, no meeting of the minds. There is no real contract.ÐÐŽÐÐ (Corley, Reed, Shedd, and Morehead, 1999, p.177).
Analysis: The case of Hill-Shaffer Partnership v. Chilson Family Trust deals with the Chilson Family Trust (seller) and the Hill-Shaffer Partnership (buyer). The Chilsons (seller) listed the Butler North and Triangle properties for sale. Hill-Schafer (buyer) received a copy of the appraisal of the listed land as – 15 acres of vacant land on the north side of Butler Avenue, valued at $620,500.
The buyer inspected land and submitted a letter of intent to purchase the listed property at the appraised price with certain terms. An error occurred when the Chilson Family Trust (seller) offer described the property as Butler North and Butler South rather than Butler North and the Triangle.
Sellers arguments
All negotiations were directed toward Butler North and the Triangle. Both the appraisal and the letter of intent described and set a price, only for the property north of Butler.
Only interested in selling Butler North and Triangle. Buyer was not even sure seller owned Butler South.
Buyers arguments
Once the seller made a counter offer, the entire nature of the deal changed. Once the seller insisted the