| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Strang & Another v. Bradner & Another was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between two parties was valid. The case involved two parties, Strang and Bradner, who had entered into a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Strang had agreed to pay Bradner a certain amount of money for the land, but Bradner had failed to deliver the deed to the land. Strang then sued Bradner for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Strang and Bradner was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, meaning that both parties had given something of value in exchange for the other's promise. The Court also found that the contract was not void for lack of mutuality, meaning that both parties had agreed to the same terms and conditions. Finally, the Court held that the contract was not void for lack of consideration, meaning that the consideration given by Strang was sufficient to support the contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Strang and Bradner was valid and enforceable. The Court found that the contract was supported by consideration, was not void for lack of mutuality, and was not void for lack of consideration.
In Strang & Another v. Bradner & Another, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced despite one of the parties not being able to read or write English. The majority opinion held that since the party in question had signed his name and affixed his seal to the document, he should be bound by its terms regardless of any language barrier. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that it would lead to an unjust result as there was no evidence presented at trial showing that either party understood what they were signing or how it affected their respective rights and obligations under law. He further argued that if such contracts are allowed without proof of understanding then unscrupulous individuals can take advantage of those who cannot read or write English for their own gain.