Seller of land signed an agreement to sell his land, since he needed the funds from the land sell urgently. Buyers who were aware of the distress of the seller were even willing to pay him some of the funds in cash. According to the seller, the court must declare the contract as void and because that agreement was reached under oppressing, while exploiting his bad financial status. The court held that in order to cancel the contract due to exploitation, the seller has to prove that while negotiating and signing the contract he was under a state of distress. He also has to prove that the other party took advantage of the plight of the seller for getting better results for him, and that the contract included, because of the exploitation, some unreasonable and poor conditions, much more than are at the usual contracts at that area. The court ruled that the financially distressed of the seller was not sufficient enough to meet the first condition required for canceling the agreement. Not all financially distress is one that will lead to cancellation of an agreement. Also recognized was unable to meet the remaining conditions required. Therefore, the court dismissed the claim.