Clayburg v. Whitt

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that, even where the purchaser contracted to buy 85 percent of the stock, questions about the existence of corporate assets justified mutual-mistake analysis
• holding that “it was proper for the court to look beyond the form of the asset transferred (corporate stock) to the substance of the transfer (corporate assets and liabilities) in deciding whether there was a mutual mistake such as would justify ... rescission of the contract”
• holding that \it was proper for the court to look beyond the form of the asset transferred (corporate stock) to the substance of the transfer (corporate assets and liabilities) in deciding whether there was a mutual mistake such as would justify . . . rescission of the contract\
• “Under the circumstances present in this case we hold it was proper for the court to look beyond the form of the asset transferred (corporate stock) to the substance of the transfer (corporate assets and liabilities

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).