THE BETROTHAL
Silvia
Thull
3/17/01
Contracts
Facts
This is a discussion about a contract (or not) which was the subject of a 1965 Andy Griffith television show.
Andy Taylor was the sheriff of a small town (population 3500), Mayberry, North Carolina. He had a son, Opie, who was ten years old. His best friend was Barney Fife, the deputy, and he and Opie lived with Aunt Bea, who, besides being family was the housekeeper.
Briscoe Darling was a rural hillbilly type. He had four adult sons, a daughter, Charlene, and a ten-month-old granddaughter, named Andelina. They came “down from the hills” now and then to see Andy, and do business. This trip, they came with a special purpose. They were looking for a husband for Andelina. It was their custom to betroth a girl child with the boy she would marry when she “comes of age.” The offer of marriage came with “ten acres of hillside land complete with good strong boulders, a one room cabin just needing a new roof and new mud floor, and a cow.”
The offer was open to any young man of suitable age (ten years old or younger) in Mayberry. The Darlings made the offer to Andy and Opie, who turned it down. The Darlings wouldn’t take no for an answer and bought Opie a suit of clothes and set up an engagement party at Andy’s house.
Andy continued to refuse, but the Darlings wouldn’t leave the house. They were playing music, and anytime Andy tried to explain why he wouldn’t go along with the deal, Briscoe and the boys acted quite menacing to Andy. Charlene put Andelina in Opie’s arms, to which Opie said, “Dad, I don’t want to marry her!”
Andy could see no way of getting them out of the house, and although he was the town sheriff, he was beginning to feel threatened by Briscoe and “the boys.”
Suddenly, Andy said, “O.K., we’ll sign.”
Briscoe pulled out a contract with the above offered conditions. Opie signed and then Andy signed, since Opie was a minor. Suddenly, the signatures disappeared. The Darlings got scared and said, “You’ve got witchery in your family.” They then ran out the door.
Andy had used disappearing ink from Opie’s science experiment to sign the contract. It was visible when wet, but disappeared when it dried.
Was there ever acceptance of Briscoe Darling’s offer by the Taylors?
If there was acceptance, did the Darling’s breach the contract by leaving?
Did the Taylor’s feel forced to sign the contract because of undue influence?
Was there acceptance? Probably.
In Lucy v. Zehmer, two men, joking around, struck a deal on the back of a paper napkin. Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493 (1954). Mr. Lucy believed he had a contract, and promptly went to work out financing with his brother. Id. Mr. Zehmer thought he had played a good joke on Mr. Lucy, and was quite surprised to find himself in court being sued for performance of the paper napkin contract. Id. The court found that looking at the objective intent of the parties, there had been both offer and acceptance, showing an intent to be bound, and a contract was formed. Id.
When Andy signed the contract with disappearing ink, objectively he still showed an intent to be bound. This was signed in front of the six adult Darlings, Aunt Bea, Barney Fife, and Opie. Although the signatures disappeared, the contract had been signed in front of all the witnesses, and objectively showed Andy and Opie did have an intent to be bound. The written contract is just a memorialization of what they were agreeing to verbally.
If there was a contract, did the
Darlings breach by leaving? No.
In Halpert v. Rosenthal, the plaintiff/seller felt that the defendant/buyer must go through with the purchase of the house, even though it was infested with termites. Halpert v. Rosenthal, 107 R.I. 406 (1970). She didn’t know about the termites, therefore, she shouldn’t be the one to accept damages, since the Rosenthals had already signed the real estate agreement. Id. The court felt that the Rosenthals had no obligation to purchase the house or pay damages, even though the presence of termites may have been an innocent misrepresentation by Halpert. Id.
Our case is different in that there was a deliberate material misrepresentation made to get the Darlings to breach the contract. The Taylors weren’t witches, yet wanted the Darlings to think that they were hiding the fact that they were, so that they would get the contract and performance. If the Darlings found out that Andy was just tricking them, and that the Taylors were not witches, they could hold them to the terms of the contract as discussed in the Lucy v. Zehmer example.
Did the Taylors sign the contract because of undue influence? Possibly.
There are two elements of undue influence; the use
of excessive pressure by the dominating person and undue susceptibility in the
servient person. Odorizzi v. Bloomfield
School District, 246 Cal. App. 2d 123 (1966). Odorizzi was susceptible because he was exhausted from going
without sleep for 40 hours while being questioned and booked on charges of
homosexual activity. Id. The overpersuasion by the dominant force was
the principal of his school and superintendent of the district coming to his
house and persuading him to sign a resignation notice.
Odorizzi sets out seven characteristics of
overpersuasion, any one of which is enough to show overpersuasion, if it is
strong enough, or there may be any combination of the factors to have a
cumulative effect. Id. They are:
(1)
Discussion of the
transaction at unusual place or time.
(2)
Consummation of the
transaction in an unusual place.
(3)
Insistent demand that
the business be finished at once.
(4)
Extreme emphasis on
untoward consequences of delay
(5)
The use of multiple
persuaders by the dominant side…
(6)
Absence of third-party
advisors to the servient party.
(7)
Statements that there
is no time to consult …advisors…
When
the Darlings all came to Andy’s house uninvited with the contract, and began
throwing an engagement party, it could be construed that this was an unusual
place to make the deal. Mr. Darling
could have gone to Andy’s office during business hours to transact the business
there. He wanted the contract signed
immediately, before they went back home to the hills. He never suggested that Andy take a few weeks to think it over. Although there did not seem to be and
extreme emphasis on the consequences of delay, there were definitely multiple
persuaders on the dominant side.
Briscoe and his four boys could be pretty intimidating. They were big and appeared strong and were
totally under the command of Briscoe.
Andy
did have third parties there to advise him, Barney Fife and Aunt Bea, but they
were in complete agreement with Andy and there was nothing that either of them
said that would change Briscoe’s mind.
The Darlings also intimidated Barney and Aunt Bea.
As
far as undue susceptibility is concerned, Andy may have been worn down and lost
sleep over this issue, we don’t know.
Also, the concern for protecting his family and friends would make him
susceptible to the Darling’s pressure.
Conclusion
Although Andy and Opie misrepresented themselves as
witches to get the Darlings to breach the contract once it was formed, we have
some concerns whether there was acceptance in the first place. If the Taylors felt forced to sign because
of undue influence, they never had an intent to be bound, but signed just to
protect themselves from the Darlings.
If there was no undue influence, and there was acceptance, the Darlings
might be able to enforce the contract because of the precedent set in Lucy
v. Zehmer. This is where we
look at the objective intent of the parties, which in this case appeared as if
Andy was ready to accept Briscoe’s offer of his granddaughter, Andelina, in
betrothal to his son, Opie.
Epilogue
This television show had a happy ending,
which doesn’t always happen in real life.
Briscoe talked to Andy and told him that there were no hard feelings,
and that they would betroth Andelina to some other boy. He would still accept the Taylors as
friends, although he still believed that there was a little “witchery” in their
family. Andy did not bother to correct
him on this comment, and they all lived “happily ever after.”