When the plaintiff obtains the contract under such conditions that equity regards the contract unfair and its enforcement a hardship specific performance will be denied,47 and it matters not that plaintiff did not intend to take

Mich. 355. Announcing the rule stated in the text and holding that Inadequacy of the purchase in connection with other facts were sufficient to warrant the court in refusing specific performance.

Burtch v. Hogge, Hav. 31. Holding that the inadequacy of the consideration may be so palpable as to warrant the court in refusing the relief sought

Rust v. Conrad, 47 Mich. 449. Holding that specific performance will not be decreed if its consideration is inadequate or if it contains overreaching or unfairness. Said the court in this case, "But when a party comes into equity it should be very plain that his claim Is an equitable one. If the contract is unequal; if he has bought land at a price which is wholly inadequate, if he has obtained the assent of the other party to unreasonable provisions; if there are any indications of overreaching or unfairness on his part the court will refuse to entertain his case, and turn him over to the usual remedies." Chambers v. Livermore, 15

Mich. 381; Munch v. Shabel, 37 Mich. 166; Mississippi, etc., R. R. Co. v. Cromwell, 91 U. S. 643; Burton v. LeRoy, 5 Sawy. 510.

46. Higgins v. Butler, 78 Me. 520, 1 Atl. 276. The defendant, a woman, agreed to sell land worth twelve hundred dollars for a horse worth one hundred dollars. The court refused to enforce it. The several elements of inequality, inadequacy of consideration and misapprehension of rights combine to lead the court to its conclusion. Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 Pet. U. S. 264, 8 L Ed. 120; Gaskins v. Byrd, 66 Fla. 432, 63 South 824; Shoop v. Burn-side, 78 Kan. 871, 98 Pac. 202; Warren Mfg. Co. v. City of Baltimore, 119 Md. 188, 86 Atl. 502; Worth v. Watts, 76 N. J. Eq. 299, 74 Atl. 434; Bullock v. Eldridge (R. I.), 90 Atl. 737; Griffith v. Spratley, 1 Cox. C. C. 383, 389, 29 Eng. Reprint, 1213.

47. Pomeroy Eq. Jur., 2nd Ed. 2209. Specific performance will be denied where the plaintiff was a clever and financially irresponsible promoter and so frames the con tract as to permit of protracted de any unfair advantage if the actual result of his bargain is inequality and unfair advantage, equity will not afford him relief.48

The inequality which equity regards as material may be divided into two general classes.

(a) Where the defendant acted under the pressing necessity of circumstances, or was at a disadvantage in the transaction by reason of old age, poverty, ignorance, inexperience, sex, etc.49

(b) Where the inequality arises not from the condition or situation of the parties, but in the operation of the contract.50 Contracts of this class are so indefinite or unqualified as to terms that their enforcement would produce an inequality not foreseen by the defendant.

As an example of first class of contracts, it has been held that even if the price was fair, no undue influence used, or advantage taken the court would not enforce specific performance against an aged, invalid woman who was without male advisers in making the bargain.51