Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): advertised and conducted the sale). Moore’s action is not moot. 7 . When consideration is so inadequate that it shocks the conscience of the court, the sale is void and will be set aside. See Hamilton v. Patterson, 236 S.C. 487, 494, 115 S.E.2d 68, 71 (1960) ("It is well settled in this State ‘that inadequacy of price, unless so gross as to shock the conscience of the court or accompanied by circumstances from which fraud may be clearly inferred, will not justify the overthrow of a judicial sale.’ ”) (citation omitted); Hughes v. Wilburn, 156 S.C. 443, 153 S.E. 487 (1930) (ruling a bid one-eightieth of the inventoried value of the property was so grossly inadequate as to be shocking to the court); Peoples Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Graham, 291 S.C. 178, 352 S.E.2d 511 (Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>). 8 . In limited circumstances, however, a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in the analogous context of choiceoflaw in relation to the sale of personal property that compensation for arranging the sale is assessed apart from underlying sale (B) holding sale price of 48100 received for mortgaged property subsequently appraised at 73000 was not so inadequate as to shock the conscience or to give rise to inference of fraud so as to require that judicial sale be set aside (C) holding that the court should in the absence of fraud or improper dealing or clear inadequacy of price as of the time the sale is made or some valid legal objection sustain the trustee and ratify the sale (D) holding that subsequent to a judicial sale the report of the sale must be made to and ratified by the court before a deed for the property is given by the trustee to the purchaser (E) holding that plaintiff lacked standing after foreclosure sale to set aside the sale arid reinstate her right to redeem property based upon arguments that events surrounding the closing of the sale were improper
Output (English): holding that plaintiff lacked standing after foreclosure sale to set aside the sale arid reinstate her right to redeem property based upon arguments that events surrounding the closing of the sale were improper