The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Anderson negotiated an option by buy land from Stamm. In those negotiations, there was no misstatement or practice of deception nor was any question by Stamm to Anderson left unanswered. Anderson was in possession of no definite information that a manufacturing plant might come to town. Anderson did have information that it was probable that a company unknown to him might locate in the area and just might need Stamm’s property. The transaction for the option was done at arm’s length, and it seemed from the evidence that citizens in the area were anxious to have a manufacturing company locate nearby. There was no evidence that the price Anderson paid for the option was not full and adequate at the time it was given. Stamm (D) sought to avoid the performance of the contract because the value of the land has now greatly increased. P sued D for specific performance of the option contract, and the bill was dismissed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.