To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library




Campbell v. Carr

Citation. Campbell v. Carr, 603 S.E.2d 625 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004)
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Martha Carr (Carr) refused to sell her property to Raymond Campbell (Campbell) after determining that that the fair market value of her property was greater than the agricultural assessed value of the land. 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Specific performance is an equitable remedy that can be used to enforce a contract. 


Martha Carr (Carr), who suffered from schizophrenia, inherited land that was leased by Raymond Campbell (Campbell). Campbell mistakenly told Carr that the purchase price of the party $54,000.The actual purchase price of the property was $103,700, the $54,000 price quote was for if the property was used for agricultural purposes. Carr and Campbell entered into a written contract to sell the property to Campbell for $54,000. Carr refused to close on the property and Campbell sued for specific performance under the contract. The trial court granted specific performance to Campbell and Carr appealed. 


Whether specific performance is an equitable remedy that can be used to enforce a contract?


Yes, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. Granting specific performance is inequitable because Campbell had knowledge of the value of the property and Carr had schizophrenia. 


Lack of consideration will only invalidate a contract if the contract is made in bad faith. Lack of consideration alone is not enough to refuse the specific performance of a contract. 

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following