130 CONTRACTS REGARDING GROWING TIMBER 



by the other party, the agreement is known as an executory 

 contract. 



A contract may be voidable because both parties were mis- 

 taken as to the subject matter of the contract (mutual mis- 

 take), or because one party had one subject matter in mind 

 while the otjier had another. Misrepresentation may arise 

 from innocent statement or the innocent withholding of 

 facts by one party which has led the other party to a mis- 

 understanding as to the subject matter of the contract. 



If one party has intentionaUy misrepresented the facts 

 with the purpose of deceiving the other party, a contract 

 may be avoided on the ground of fraud, if the misrepresenta- 

 tions were material and the other party was actually misled 

 by them. A contract may be avoided on the ground of 

 duress, if the promise or act of one party was extorted from 

 him by threatened personal violence. If one of the parties 

 is not, in the view of the law, moraUy capable of entering 

 into contract, from either a permanent or a temporary dis- 

 ability, a contract may be avoided on the ground of undue 

 influence. A contract may be. entirely void because its 

 object is illegal. 



A contract may be discharged by mutual agreement be- 

 fore performance is completed. It is discharged when fully 

 performed by both parties. One or both parties may be 

 relieved from full performance because conditions have be- 

 come such as to make performance impossible, such as a 

 state of war. A contract may be discharged by operation 

 of law. If not relieved from performance because of any 

 one of the four conditions enumerated, a party to a contract 

 who fails to perform will be liable for damages in a legal 

 action brought by the other party. 



Contracts for the sale of timberland l and standing tim- 



1. Ark. Klopple v. Wagonstock Co. 1488. W. 75; Cf. Conway v. Coursey, 110 

 Ark. 557, 161 S. W. 1030 (rental of land for clearing does not give right 

 to sell timber) . 



Colo. Lumber Co. v. Inv. Co.. 55 Colo. 271, 133 Pac. 1112. 

 Ga. Gaskins v. Green, 141 Ga. 552, 81 S. E. 882; Pine Co. v. Stores Co., 140 Ga. 



323, 78 S. E. 901. 



Ky. Hicks v. Phillips, 148 Ky. 670, 147 S. W. 42. 

 La. R. R. Co. v. Lbr. Co. 59 So. 403; Rogers v. Lbr. Co. 129 La. 40, 55 So. 



702. 



Me. Blood v. Drummond, 67 Me. 476. 

 N. C. Warick v. Taylor, 163 N. C. 68, 79 S. E. 286. 



Hairing v. Lbr. Co., 163 N. C. 481, 79 S. E. 876. 

 Veneer Co. v. Anze, 165 N. C. 54, 80 S. E. 886. 



(Footnote 1 continued on next page) 



