If A makes a speculative bargain by which he intends to take the risk of gain or loss, the fact that such speculation results unfavorably to A and that he does not gain the advantages which he had hoped when he entered into the speculation, does not amount to a failure of consideration.1 If A advances money to B, to enable B to perfeet an invention under an agreement by which B is to form a corporation if such invention is successful and to issue a certain amount of stock to A in return for such advance, the fact that such invention does not prove to be successful and that accordingly no corporation is organized, does not amount to a failure of consideration.2 If stock is bought at a price which is based on the assumption that a dividend will be declared thereon in a short time, the fact that such dividend is not declared or is less than the amount which was anticipated, does not amount to a failure of consideration.3

15 Simmons v. Sefrit (Ia.), 125 N. W. 93.

16 Oakford v. Nixon, 177 Pa. St. 76, 34 L. R. A. 575, 35 Atl. 588.

17 New Orleans Polo Club v. Jockey Club, 128 La. 1044, 55 So. 668.

See Sec. 2774 et seq.

18 New Orleans Polo Club v. Jockey Club, 128 La. 1044, 55 So. 668.

1 United States. Tayloe v. Riggs, 26 U. S. (1 Pet.) 591, 7 L. ed. 275; Wilson v. Simpson, 50 U. S. (9 How.) 109, 13 L. ed. 66; United States v. Harvey Steel Co., 196 U. S. 310, 49 L. ed. 492; Eclinse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 199 U. S 581. 50 L. ed. 317.

Alabama. Mertins v. Hubbell Publishing Co., 190 Ala. 311, 67 So. 275.

Connecticut. Johnson v. Williman-tic Linen Co., 33 Conn. 436.

Illinois. Myers v. Turner, 17 111. 179; Hildreth v. Turner, 17 111. 184.

Indiana. Detrick v. McGlone, 46 Ind. 291.

Maryland. Schwarzenbach v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co., 65 Md. 34. 57 Am. Pep. 301, 3 Atl. 676.

Massachusetts. Foes v. Richardson, 81 Mass. (15 Gray) 303; Nash v. Lull, 102 Mass. 60, 3 Am. Rep. 435: Palmer v. Guillow, 224 Mass. 1, 112 N. E. 493.

Minnesota. Wilson v. Hentges, 26 Minn. 288, 3 N. W. 338; Van Norman v. Barbeau, 54 Minn. 388, 55 N. W. 1112.

A contract of sale of a patent previously issued, or of a right thereunder, can not be avoided where the vendee knows exactly what he is getting, though it proves of no value to him.4 Under a contract to pay royalties for permission to use a patent right, it is said that such royalties can be recovered as long as the patent is not annulled or set aside judicially,5 at least if the licensee has not given notice that he is not acting under the contract.6 After the patent is annulled, such royalties can not be recovered.7 If the parties know that the validity of the patent is in dispute, and agree to pay royalties until it is judicially decided that such patent is invalid, such royalties can be recovered until such judicial decision, adverse to the patent, is rendered.8

New York. Marston v. Swett, 82 N. Y. 626; Jones v. Reynolds, 120 N Y. 213, 24 N. E 270; Hyatt v Ingalls. 124 N. Y. 93. 26 N E 285; McGill v. Holmes, 168 N Y. 647, 61 N E. 1131.

North Carolina. Fair v. Shelton, 128 N. Car 105, 38 S E. 290

Ohio. Tod v. Wick, 36 O S. 370.

2 Palmer v. Guillow, 224 Mass. 1, 112 N. E 493.

3 Tayloe. v. Rigga, 26 U. S. (1 Pet ) 691, 7 L. ed. 275.

4 United States. Wilson v. Simpson. 60 U. S. (9 How.) 109, 13 L. ed. 60; United States v. Harvey Steel Co.. 190 U. S. 310, 49 L. ed. 492; Eclipse Bicycle Co. v. Farrow, 199 U. S. 581, 50 L. ed. 317.

Connecticut. Johnson v. Willimantic Linen Co., 33 Conn. 436.

Illinois. Myers v. Turner, 17. 111. 179; Hildreth v. Turner, 17 111. 184.

Indiana. Detrick v. McGlone, 46 Ind. 291.

Maryland Schwarzenbach v Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co, 65 Md. 34, 67 Am Rep. 301, 3 Atl. 676

Massachusetts. Foss v Richardson, 81 Mass (15 Gray) 303; Nash v Lull, 102 Mass. 60, 3 Am Rep. 435

Minnesota. Wilson v Hentges, 20 Minn 288, 3 N W 338; Van Norman v. Barbeau, 54 Minn. 388, 55 N W. 1112

New York. Marston v Swett, 82 N. Y. 520; Jones v. Reynolds, 120 N. Y. 213, 24 N E 279; Hyatt v Ingalls, 124 N Y. 93, 26 N E. 285.

North Carolina. Fair v. Shelton, 128 N. Car. 105, 38 S. E. 290.

Ohio. Tod v. Wick, 36 O S. 370.

See Sec. 2993.

5 Marston v. Swett, 82 N. Y. 526; Hyatt v. Ingalls, 124 N. Y. 93, 26 N. E. 285.

6 Marston v. Swett, 82 N. Y. 526; Hyatt v. Ingalls, 124 N. Y. 93, 26 N. E. 285.

7 Marston v. Swett. 82 N. Y. 526.

Some cases, however, hold that if the patent proves to be worthless, failure of consideration exists.9 Some of the cases cited on this point are really decided on the ground of fraud.10 A contract for the sale of a patent protecting certain specified improvements, is broken if letters patent are thereafter issued for only a small portion of the improvements specified and the application as to the rest of such improvements is rejected.11 In other cases it has been held that if the patented article is so useless as to avoid the patent, the consideration fails.12 In such cases the tender of the letters patent by the vendee to the vendor places the latter in statu quo.13 If the patent is void, it is said to be a failure of consideration,14 even if the vendor of such right has warranted his right to sell and convey the same.15