Hill-Shaffer Partnership V. Chilson Family Trust

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 Ð'ÐŽÐ'§mutual assent requires that the Ð'ÐŽÐ'§mindsÐ'ÐŽÐ'Ё of contracting parties must Ð'ÐŽÐ'§meetÐ'ÐŽÐ'Ё before a contract exists. Two parties may sign a piece of paper called a Ð'ÐŽÐ'§contractÐ'ÐŽÐ'Ё, but if each believes the contract involves something

different, there is no mutual assent, no meeting of the minds. There is no real contract.Ð'ÐŽÐ'Ё (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.

Seller's arguments

Ð'„X 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.

Ð'„X Only interested in selling Butler North and Triangle. Buyer was not even sure seller owned Butler South.

Buyer's arguments

Ð'„X Once the seller made a counter offer, the entire nature of the deal changed. Once the seller insisted the