Incorrect.  Consider in this regard that, as the dissent points out, “In consideration for the lease contract, plaintiffs were to receive a certain amount as royalty for the coal produced and marketed and in addition thereto their land was to be restored as provided in the contract.”  The dissent emphasizes that the royalties alone were not enough to induce Peevyhouse to enter the contract.  It notes that “there were several negotiations between the plaintiffs and defendant before the contract was executed. Defendant admitted in the trial of the action, that plaintiffs insisted that the above provisions be included in the contract and that they would not agree to the coal mining lease unless the above provisions were included.”  

 

This suggests that Peevyhouse would have refused to enter the contract if the defendant had, in the negotiations, had nor promised to restore the land but instead offered to pay an additional $300 to Peevyhouse to compensate for the reduction in market value.  Evidently, the value to Peevyhouse of having the land restored was greater than $300. 

 

Continue