Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1817

Laidlaw v. Organ

15 U.S. 178 | 4 L. Ed. 214 | 2 Wheat. 178 | 1817 U.S. LEXIS 396

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case permits a buyer to profit from superior market information, but not to obtain a bargain through affirmative deception or other conduct that improperly misleads the seller.

Background

Hector Organ agreed to buy 111 hogsheads of tobacco from Peter Laidlaw & Co. in New Orleans. Before the sale was completed, Organ learned privately that the Treaty of Ghent had been signed, ending the War of 1812. The news was expected to increase tobacco prices substantially. When Organ met with Francis Girault of Laidlaw & Co. the next morning, Girault asked whether there was any news likely to raise the tobacco's value. Organ did not disclose the peace news, and the parties completed the sale. The tobacco's value then rose by roughly 30 to 50 percent.

Laidlaw & Co. later retook the tobacco. Organ sued to recover it and obtained a writ sequestering the hogsheads while the case was pending. At trial, the district court excluded Girault as a witness and instructed the jury to find for Organ because there was no evidence that Organ had made an affirmative misrepresentation. The jury awarded Organ the tobacco, conditioned on his payment under the contract. Laidlaw & Co. sought review in the Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a buyer who possesses exclusive information about an external event affecting a commodity's market price must disclose that information to the seller before purchasing the commodity.

Holding

No. Organ had no legal duty to disclose the peace news merely because it was material to the tobacco's price.

Reasoning

Chief Justice Marshall distinguished information about extrinsic circumstances affecting market value from deception about the commodity itself. The peace treaty did not concern a defect, quality, title, or condition of the tobacco; it was outside information expected to alter the market price.

The Court concluded that a contrary rule would be difficult to confine within workable limits when both parties have access to the means of obtaining intelligence. A party may lawfully benefit from superior diligence or good fortune in acquiring market information.

The Court nevertheless made clear that commercial bargaining has a boundary: neither party may say or do anything tending to impose upon the other. Silence alone did not create a general duty to reveal the news, but affirmative conduct designed to mislead could invalidate the transaction.

Issue #2

Whether the district court properly directed the jury to find for Organ rather than allowing the jury to determine whether he had imposed upon the seller.

Holding

No. The question whether Organ practiced an imposition on Laidlaw & Co. should have been submitted to the jury.

Reasoning

Although Organ was not obligated simply to volunteer the peace news, Girault had directly asked whether there was news likely to enhance the tobacco's value. The circumstances of Organ's response, including his silence in the face of that inquiry, raised a factual question about whether he engaged in conduct tending to mislead the seller.

The Supreme Court did not decide that Organ had committed fraud. Instead, it held that the trial judge erred by removing the possible-imposition question from the jury through an absolute instruction to find for Organ.

Because the improper directed instruction required reversal, the Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, directing the district court to award a venire facias de novo.