Opinion ID: 1059070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Count II Grossly Inadequate Consideration

Text: The chancellor also entered judgment in Mrs. Beckner's favor on Count II of her Bill of Complaint  grossly inadequate consideration. Substantial failure of consideration is a recognized ground for rescission of a contract because such gross inadequacy is clear evidence of fraud. Texas Co. v. Northup, 154 Va. 428, 442-45, 153 S.E. 659, 663-64 (1930); Broaddus v. Broaddus, 144 Va. 727, 750, 130 S.E. 794, 801 (1925). The standard for this claim is the same as claims of undue influence based on grossly inadequate consideration: [a]n inequality so strong, gross and manifest that it must be impossible to state it to a man of common sense without producing an exclamation at the inequality of it. Texas Co., 154 Va. at 443, 153 S.E. at 663, (quoting Gwynne, 1 Bro. Ch. at 9). Finally, because gross inadequacy is based on fraud, it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Id. We have already determined in considering Mrs. Beckner's claim of undue influence that the record did not support a finding of grossly inadequate compensation. Applying the same standard to her claims in this Count, we conclude that the chancellor erred in entering judgment in favor of Mrs. Beckner on Count II because the consideration was not grossly inadequate. Accordingly, for the reasons stated, we will reverse the trial court's decree rescinding the amendment to the lease and requiring repayment of funds by Mrs. Beckner. [2] Reversed and final judgment.