The cases that are hardest to understand are the ones where one of the parties did something incredibly stupid. For example, in Batsakis v. Demotsis (1949), Mrs. Demotsis agreed to pay $2000 for a loan of 500,000 drachmas (worth about $25)
‘Q. ….. who suggested the figure of $2,000.00?
A. That was how he asked me from the beginning. He said he will give me five hundred thousand drachmas provided I signed that I would pay him $2,000.00 American money.’
I had to look the case up on Westlaw because I couldn’t believe someone agreed to pay back 80 times the amount they borrowed.
It also looked like Mrs. Demotsis signed a letter stating she received $2000, when she really only borrowed $25.
I must have read it wrong. The case must be in old-speak. No one does that. I must be missing something…
And so I check Westlaw and learn that Mrs. Demotsis actually agreed to pay $2000 for $25 loan. And she also signed a letter stating she received $2000, when she …well, didn’t.
So I learned three things:
- I need to trust my readings of cases.
- Mere inadequacy of consideration will not void a contract
- …and yes, someone can be that stupid.