PLEASE BRIEF THE FOLLOWING CASE

Supreme Court of lowa Charles W. POTTER and Sue E. Potter, Appellees. Merrill J. OSTER, Appellant. 426 NW. 20148 (1988) No. 87.26. June 15, 1988 Attorneys: David H. Luginbill of Ahlers, Concy. Dowciler. Haynic. Smith & Allbee. Des Moines, and w.D. Sandlinger of McCrindle, Bergstrom & Sindlinger, Cedar Falls, for appellant. David J. Mansheim of Klinkenborg. Hancmann & Mansheim, Parkersburg, for appellees. Justices Considered by LARSON. PJ and SCHULTZ, CARTER. NEUMAN and SNELLI NEUMAN, Justice Case Decision: This is a suit in equity brought by the plaintiffs to rescind an installment land contract based on the seller's inability to convey title. The question on appeal is whether in an era of declining land values, returning the parties to the status quo works an inequitable result. We think not. Accordingly, we affirm the district court judgment for rescission and restitution The facts are largely undisputed. Because the case was tried in equity, our review is de nova Iowa R.A.P 4 We give weight to the findings of the trial court, particularly where the credibility of witnesses is concerned, but we are not bound thereby. Iowa R.App.P.14017 The parties, though sharing a common interest in agribusiness present a study in contrasts. We think the disparity in their background and experience is notable insofar as it bears on the equities of the transaction in issue Plaintiff Charles Potter is a farm laborer and his wife. Sue. is a homemaker and substitute teacher. They have lived all their lives within a few miles of the real estate in question Defendant Merrill Oster is an agricultural journalist and recognized specialist in land investment strategies. He owns Oster Communications, a multimillion dollar publishing concem devoted to furnishing farmers the latest in commodity market analysis and advice on an array of In May 1978. Oster contractod with Florence Stark to purchase her 160-acre farm in Howard County, lowa, for $260,000 on a ten-year contract at seven percent interest Oster then sold the homestead and nine actes to Charles and Sue Potter for $70,000. Potters paid $18.850 down and executed a ten-year installment contract for the balance at 83% interest. Oster then executed a contract with Robert Bishop for the sale of the remaining 151 acres as part of a package deal that included the sale of seventeen farms for a sum exceeding 55.9 million These back-to-back contracts collapsed like dominoes in March 1985 when Bishop failed to pay Oster and Oster failed to pay Stark the installments due on their respective contracts. Stark commenced forfeiture proceedings.Potters had paid every installment when due under their contract with Oster and had included Stark as a joint payee with Oster on their March 1, 1955. Nyment. But they were financially unable to exercise their right to advance the sums due on the entire 160 acres in order to preserve their die the Power LANGE March 1985 when Bishop failed to payer ander Garted to pay Sark the installments de ce their respective contracts Stark commenced forfeiture proceedings.Promes had paid every installment when we under their with Oster and had included Stark as a joint payee with Ostere their March 1, payment. But they financially unable to exercise the right to see interest in the end met As a result interest in the real estate was forfeited along with Oster's home in August 1966 Posters then aed Oer to rescind their contract with him ie traps in for closing the transaction and locating fie feite walled 10. The principal balance mining their contract with Oster was $27.900 Trial testimony also revealed that the market value of the property had dorcased markedly since its purchase Expert appraisers valued the homestead and mine acres between $27.500 and 535.000. Oder him placed on $150 per month,cal 10,800 for the conomic los sustained Scend Oster contends the trial court failed to strike an equitable balance between the parties by accing Potter alleged failure to mitigate the 1 Judicial remedies for each of contacte protect one or more of the following interests of "Expectation interest in having the benefit of the hargain placing the price is pood a position as he contract had been fully performat Reliance interest in rcmunement for the low.co by cliance on the contract, placing the promised a position as if the contract had been made, "Restitution interest is having restored to the promise the benefit conferred upon the party in beach See Restimoni Secondo Contracts also . Faworth. 121, 11-15 hereinafter Parwo Each mely tiles the reimbursement to the low sustained. Recovery based on expectations may include est pole because the promise is nie the actual value of the contract lalit been performed Famsworth at 813. Reimbursement based on reliance the benefit to the injured party cofnod item received in money or services by, for example.com interessandinarily aller bestelde measured by either of these interests takes account of cost incurred in conforming a benefit on the party in breach the restitutie interest includes neither the role prolit nor the part of his expenditures in reliance that confered to benefit the party in beach do Nowe March 1985 when Bishop failed to pay er er failed to pay Suk them contracts. Stark commenced forfeito proceedings.Promes had paid every installment when we under their with Oster and had included Surks kasaji payee with Oster on their March But they were financially unable to exercise the right back interest in the second homestead. As a result, the interest in the real estate was forfeited along with one's home in August 1985 Peters the seed Oer to recind their rem aps for closing the transaction and selecting tiefelete talled 1000. The principal balance in the contact with Oster was $27.00 Trial testimony also revealed that the market value of the property had dorcase markedly since its purchase Expert appraisers valued the homestead and nine acres between $27.500 and $35.000 Oder impedale on the property Potter 8.000. Evidence was alive received placing the role ole of the property $150 per month, 10,300 for they conomic loa sustained Second Oster contends the trial court failed to strike an equitable balance between the parties by accing Potter alleged failure to mitigate the Judicial remedies for each of contacte protect one or more of the following interests of the ) Expectation interest in having the benefit of the bargain placing the premises pood a positions contract had been fully performat ("cliance interesin riemer the con by reliance on the contract, placing the promise is goed "Restiti interest is having restored to the promise the benefit conferred upon the party in beach See RestantementSeconda Contacts ale . w. Construct 12.1. 11-15 hereinafter work Each remedy is the reimbursement to the sustained. Recovery based on expectation in my include lost profit because the promise is reibende the actual value of the contract balat been performed intent is to put this party in boca back in the position in receniod in money or services by, for examples the benefit the injured party he coefend expectation or the reliance interest: Although every measured by cither of these interests takes account of cost incurred in conforming a benefit on the party in brachte restitutie interest includes neither thered prolis nor the part of his expenditures in reliance that confined to benefit the party in breach Supreme Court of lowa Charles W. POTTER and Sue E. Potter, Appellees. Merrill J. OSTER, Appellant. 426 NW. 20148 (1988) No. 87.26. June 15, 1988 Attorneys: David H. Luginbill of Ahlers, Concy. Dowciler. Haynic. Smith & Allbee. Des Moines, and w.D. Sandlinger of McCrindle, Bergstrom & Sindlinger, Cedar Falls, for appellant. David J. Mansheim of Klinkenborg. Hancmann & Mansheim, Parkersburg, for appellees. Justices Considered by LARSON. PJ and SCHULTZ, CARTER. NEUMAN and SNELLI NEUMAN, Justice Case Decision: This is a suit in equity brought by the plaintiffs to rescind an installment land contract based on the seller's inability to convey title. The question on appeal is whether in an era of declining land values, returning the parties to the status quo works an inequitable result. We think not. Accordingly, we affirm the district court judgment for rescission and restitution The facts are largely undisputed. Because the case was tried in equity, our review is de nova Iowa R.A.P 4 We give weight to the findings of the trial court, particularly where the credibility of witnesses is concerned, but we are not bound thereby. Iowa R.App.P.14017 The parties, though sharing a common interest in agribusiness present a study in contrasts. We think the disparity in their background and experience is notable insofar as it bears on the equities of the transaction in issue Plaintiff Charles Potter is a farm laborer and his wife. Sue. is a homemaker and substitute teacher. They have lived all their lives within a few miles of the real estate in question Defendant Merrill Oster is an agricultural journalist and recognized specialist in land investment strategies. He owns Oster Communications, a multimillion dollar publishing concem devoted to furnishing farmers the latest in commodity market analysis and advice on an array of In May 1978. Oster contractod with Florence Stark to purchase her 160-acre farm in Howard County, lowa, for $260,000 on a ten-year contract at seven percent interest Oster then sold the homestead and nine actes to Charles and Sue Potter for $70,000. Potters paid $18.850 down and executed a ten-year installment contract for the balance at 83% interest. Oster then executed a contract with Robert Bishop for the sale of the remaining 151 acres as part of a package deal that included the sale of seventeen farms for a sum exceeding 55.9 million These back-to-back contracts collapsed like dominoes in March 1985 when Bishop failed to pay Oster and Oster failed to pay Stark the installments due on their respective contracts. Stark commenced forfeiture proceedings.Potters had paid every installment when due under their contract with Oster and had included Stark as a joint payee with Oster on their March 1, 1955. Nyment. But they were financially unable to exercise their right to advance the sums due on the entire 160 acres in order to preserve their die the Power LANGE March 1985 when Bishop failed to payer ander Garted to pay Sark the installments de ce their respective contracts Stark commenced forfeiture proceedings.Promes had paid every installment when we under their with Oster and had included Stark as a joint payee with Ostere their March 1, payment. But they financially unable to exercise the right to see interest in the end met As a result interest in the real estate was forfeited along with Oster's home in August 1966 Posters then aed Oer to rescind their contract with him ie traps in for closing the transaction and locating fie feite walled 10. The principal balance mining their contract with Oster was $27.900 Trial testimony also revealed that the market value of the property had dorcased markedly since its purchase Expert appraisers valued the homestead and mine acres between $27.500 and 535.000. Oder him placed on $150 per month,cal 10,800 for the conomic los sustained Scend Oster contends the trial court failed to strike an equitable balance between the parties by accing Potter alleged failure to mitigate the 1 Judicial remedies for each of contacte protect one or more of the following interests of "Expectation interest in having the benefit of the hargain placing the price is pood a position as he contract had been fully performat Reliance interest in rcmunement for the low.co by cliance on the contract, placing the promised a position as if the contract had been made, "Restitution interest is having restored to the promise the benefit conferred upon the party in beach See Restimoni Secondo Contracts also . Faworth. 121, 11-15 hereinafter Parwo Each mely tiles the reimbursement to the low sustained. Recovery based on expectations may include est pole because the promise is nie the actual value of the contract lalit been performed Famsworth at 813. Reimbursement based on reliance the benefit to the injured party cofnod item received in money or services by, for example.com interessandinarily aller bestelde measured by either of these interests takes account of cost incurred in conforming a benefit on the party in breach the restitutie interest includes neither the role prolit nor the part of his expenditures in reliance that confered to benefit the party in beach do Nowe March 1985 when Bishop failed to pay er er failed to pay Suk them contracts. Stark commenced forfeito proceedings.Promes had paid every installment when we under their with Oster and had included Surks kasaji payee with Oster on their March But they were financially unable to exercise the right back interest in the second homestead. As a result, the interest in the real estate was forfeited along with one's home in August 1985 Peters the seed Oer to recind their rem aps for closing the transaction and selecting tiefelete talled 1000. The principal balance in the contact with Oster was $27.00 Trial testimony also revealed that the market value of the property had dorcase markedly since its purchase Expert appraisers valued the homestead and nine acres between $27.500 and $35.000 Oder impedale on the property Potter 8.000. Evidence was alive received placing the role ole of the property $150 per month, 10,300 for they conomic loa sustained Second Oster contends the trial court failed to strike an equitable balance between the parties by accing Potter alleged failure to mitigate the Judicial remedies for each of contacte protect one or more of the following interests of the ) Expectation interest in having the benefit of the bargain placing the premises pood a positions contract had been fully performat ("cliance interesin riemer the con by reliance on the contract, placing the promise is goed "Restiti interest is having restored to the promise the benefit conferred upon the party in beach See RestantementSeconda Contacts ale . w. Construct 12.1. 11-15 hereinafter work Each remedy is the reimbursement to the sustained. Recovery based on expectation in my include lost profit because the promise is reibende the actual value of the contract balat been performed intent is to put this party in boca back in the position in receniod in money or services by, for examples the benefit the injured party he coefend expectation or the reliance interest: Although every measured by cither of these interests takes account of cost incurred in conforming a benefit on the party in brachte restitutie interest includes neither thered prolis nor the part of his expenditures in reliance that confined to benefit the party in breach