## Facts

- Cordelia Warrick (seller/defendant) entered into a written contract to sell a tract of land to J. J. Kies (buyer/plaintiff).
- The contract described the tract as containing **209 acres**, consistent with Warrick’s belief about the acreage.
- In negotiating the deal, the parties discussed the sale price and also discussed that, at that total price, the land was being purchased at **\$142.58 per acre**.
- After the contract was executed, Kies ordered a land survey.
- The survey showed the tract contained **203.17 acres**, not 209 acres (a deficiency of about **5.83 acres**).
- Kies did not seek rescission. He sued for **specific performance** of the contract, requesting a **reduction of the total purchase price** based on the agreed **per‑acre** figure.
- The trial court granted Kies specific performance and reduced the price to **\$142.58 × 203.17 acres**.
- Warrick appealed to the **Minnesota Supreme Court**.

## Issues

1. When a land-sale contract states an acreage and the parties discuss the bargain in per‑acre terms, may the buyer obtain specific performance with a proportional reduction in price after a survey shows a material acreage deficiency?

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court **affirmed**.
- The court held that Kies was entitled to **specific performance with a proportional abatement** of the purchase price to account for the acreage shortage.
- Because the parties’ negotiations treated the transaction as priced **by the acre** (reflected by the agreed per‑acre figure), equity could adjust the price to match the acreage actually conveyed.
- The proper adjustment was calculated using the parties’ agreed per‑acre rate: **\$142.58 multiplied by 203.17 acres**.

## Legal Principles

- A land-sale contract may be treated as a sale **by the acre** when the parties fix or discuss the consideration on a per‑acre basis, even if the agreement also states a lump-sum total.
- In an action for specific performance, a court of equity may order conveyance of the land **with compensation** (a price abatement) when the quantity delivered is less than the quantity both parties assumed and the bargain was based on unit price.
- When abatement is allowed for an acreage deficiency in a by-the-acre sale, the reduction is commonly measured by the **agreed per‑acre price** applied to the **actual acreage** shown by reliable proof such as a survey.
- Granting specific performance with abatement can carry out the parties’ deal while preventing the buyer from paying for land not received and preventing the seller from retaining payment for missing acreage.

## Conclusion

*Kies v. Warrick* holds that when a land contract states an acreage and the parties’ agreement and discussions show the price was calculated on a per‑acre basis, a later-discovered acreage deficiency permits specific performance with a proportional reduction in the purchase price, computed at the agreed per‑acre rate for the acreage actually conveyed.


Kies v. Warrick, 182 N.W. 998 (1921)