View source for Laidlaw v. Organ

{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Laidlaw v. Organ
  |ArgueDate=
  |ArgueYear=
  |DecideDate=March 15
  |DecideYear=1817
  |FullName=Peter Laidlaw and Company v. Hector M. Organ
  |USVol=15
  |USPage=178
  |ParallelCitations=2 [[Henry Wheaton|Wheat.]] 178; 4 [[L. Ed.]] 214; 1817 [[U.S. LEXIS]] 396
  |Prior=Error to the District Court for the Louisiana District
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding= A party is not obligated to disclose all of the information within its possession with regard to a certain transaction when the other party asks a general question about the party's awareness of issues that might affect the transaction's value. 
  |Majority=Marshall
  |JoinMajority=''unanimous''
  |LawsApplied=
}}
'''''Laidlaw v. Organ''''', 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 178 (1817), is a case decided by the [[US Supreme Court]] that established ''[[caveat emptor]]'' in the [[United States]].

==Facts==
Organ purchased 111 [[hogshead]]s of [[tobacco]] (111,000 pounds) from Laidlaw & Co. on February 18, 1815 in [[New Orleans]]. The purchase was made between 8 and 9am on the same day that news broke that a [[Treaty of Ghent|peace treaty]] had been accepted between America and Britain that ended the [[War of 1812]] and lifted a naval embargo that had drastically depressed the price of American tobacco by 30 to 50 percent. Organ was aware of the lifting of the embargo because his brother had informed him earlier that morning. Laidlaw was not aware of the news. During the discussion of the contract, Organ was asked if he was aware of any reasons for the price to be higher; Organ stayed silent over the news of the lifting of the embargo. The subsequent rise in tobacco prices after the signing of the contract incurred a large relative loss on the sale compared to the tobacco's value the next day. Two days later, on the 20th, Laidlaw & Co. repossessed the tobacco by force from Organ, who filed suit for [[breach of contract]] to regain the tobacco or to be awarded damages.

==Procedural history==
The trial court charged the jury to find for the plaintiff (Organ).

==Holding==
Chief Justice Marshall's unanimous opinion can be interpreted to state that withholding information that is calculated to deceive the other party can cause a contract to be void on equitable grounds.  However, on the question of whether Organ had an obligation to disclose the information he had obtained about the end of the war, the opinion declares, "The court is of opinion that he was not bound to communicate it."

Marshall's opinion went on to state, "It would be difficult to circumscribe the contrary doctrine within proper limits, where the means of intelligence are equally accessible to both parties. But at the same time, each party must take care not to say or do any thing tending to impose upon the other."

The case was remanded to the District court of Louisiana, with directions to award a ''[[venire facias de novo]]''. The court stated the question of equitable relief should have been submitted to a jury and that Laidlaw was entitled to a new trial. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion was brief, at approximately 120 words.

==Significance==
''Laidlaw'' has been recognized by US legal scholars as a central case in the history of [[US contract law]]. It was the first case in which the Supreme Court adopted the rule of ''[[caveat emptor]]''<ref>Kaye, Joshua. "Disclosure, Information, the Law of Contracts, and the Mistaken Use of ''Laidlaw v. Organ''." Unpublished. 2007. p. 2. {{cite web|url=http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article%3D1000%26context%3Djoshua_kaye |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2008-03-30 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930153630/http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=joshua_kaye |archivedate=2007-09-30 }}</ref> and "was one of the first cases to come before the [Supreme] Court involving a contract for future delivery of a commodity."<ref>Morton J. Horwitz. The Transformation of American Law: 1780-1860. 1977. p. 182.</ref> It is also the first case to start to articulate a doctrine of forbidding active concealment.

''Laidlaw'' has been cited by 110 different cases and maintains great importance in US legal scholarship and education (including law school contracts courses). It has also appeared over 100 times in law review articles, appellate court briefs, and other academic materials.<ref name=WestlawNext>{{cite web|title=Westlaw|url=https://a.next.westlaw.com/RelatedInformation/I3eab8ed3b5bc11d993e6d35cc61aab4a/CitingReferences.html?docSource=fc3736ed81e241a58be47589d37c55b6&facetGuid=i0ad72102000001359b9796c2bad92343&transitionType=ListViewType&contextData=(sc.UserEnteredCitation)|work=Citing References – Laidlaw v. Organ – WestlawNext|publisher=Thompson-Reuters|accessdate=2011-02-20}}</ref><ref>Kaye, loc. cit.</ref>

''Laidlaw'' has also faced criticism from an economic perspective on the idea that nondisclosure of information that will shortly become public does not encourage overall efficiency because it merely affects distribution.  Earlier disclosure could have resulted in more efficient planting decisions by farmers, and nondisclosure served only to enrich Organ.<ref>Kronman, Anthony T.  ''Mistake, Disclosure, Information, and the Law of Contracts.''  7 J. Legal. Stud. 1, 13 1978.</ref>

==Trivia==
Organ, the vendee, was represented by [[Francis Scott Key]].<ref>Ayres & Klass. Studies in Contract Law 490.</ref>

==Quote==
"[E]ach party must take care not to say or do anything tending to impose upon [i.e. take advantage of] the other"
-Marshall

==See also==
*[[List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 15]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*{{wikisource-inline|Laidlaw v. Organ}}
* {{caselaw source
 | case = ''Laidlaw v. Organ'', {{ussc|15|178|1817|Wheat.|2|el=no}}
 | courtlistener =
 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/15/178/
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep015/usrep015178/usrep015178.pdf
 | openjurist =https://openjurist.org/15/us/178
 }}
{{United States contract case law}}
{{authority control}}

[[Category:1817 in United States case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States contract case law]]
[[Category:United States tobacco case law]]
[[Category:United States in the War of 1812]]
[[Category:19th century in New Orleans]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Marshall Court]]