Student Solution

-->

"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”
– Nelson Mandela

1 University

1 Course

1 Subject

Module 4-Assignment 3

Module 4-Assignment 3

Q 12.2) Conrad Schaneman, Sr., had eight sons and five daughters. He owned an 80-acre farm in the Scotts Bluff area of Nebraska. Conrad was born in Russia and could not read or write English. All of his children had frequent contact with Conrad and helped with his needs. Subsequently, however, his eldest son, Lawrence, advised the other children that he would henceforth manage his father’s business affairs. After much urging by Lawrence, Conrad deeded the farm to Lawrence for $23,500. Evidence showed that at the time of the sale, the reasonable fair market value of the farm was between $145,000 and $160,000. At the time of the conveyance, Conrad was more than 80 years old, had deteriorated in health, suffered from heart problems and diabetes, had high and uncontrollable blood sugar levels, weighed almost 300 pounds, had difficulty breathing, could not walk more than 15 feet, and had to have a jackhoist lift him in and out of the bathtub. He was for all purposes an invalid, relying on Lawrence for most of his personal needs, transportation, banking, and other business matters. After Conrad died, the conservators of the estate brought an action to cancel the deed transferring the farm to Lawrence. Can the conservators cancel the deed? Schaneman v. Schaneman, 206 Neb. 113, 291 N.W.2d 412, Web 1980 Neb. Lexis 823 (Supreme Court of Nebraska)

View Related Questions

Solution Preview

In the provided case scenario of, Schaneman v. Schaneman, the situation portrayed refers to the situation wherein, one of the either parties to contract was found to take undue advantage of both physical and mental weakness of the other party to contract. Herein, in context to the case, autonomous judgment by the either party to contract had actually been deprived by the party who is expected to hold more power in context to the advantage of the superior party to contract. In general context, it can be stated that the aggrieved party is mainly taken over by the other party to contract (Schaneman v. Schaneman, 1980).