Unfortunately, the financial crisis occurs and destroys the value of both companies` investments. The shares of the investment companies disappear and the buyer is unable to fulfill his obligation to pay the residual price. The two sisters are suing the buyer in the hope of getting a reward for the rest of the prize. However, the buyer invokes the nullity of the sales contract: the guarantee of the two target investment companies for the deferred payment constitutes financial assistance. Under the legislation in force at the time, financial aid was still prohibited. The sisters` request comes back to them like a nasty boomerang: the first instance declared the sales contract null and void and not entitled. Subsequently, instead of paying the rest of the purchase price, the sisters had to pay back everything they had already received. Of course, you got the shares yourself, but those shares had become worthless. A contract may be invalidated even if a change in legislation or regulation occurs after an agreement has been reached, but before the contract is carried out, if the legal activities previously described in the document are now considered illegal. Empty contracts may arise if one of the parties is unable to fully understand the effects of the agreement. For example, a person with a mental disability or an intoxicated person may not be consistent enough to properly record the parameters of the agreement, rendering it invalid. In addition, agreements made by minors may be considered unseable; However, some contracts with minors who have obtained the consent of a parent or legal guardian may be enforceable. The Supreme Court dismissed the reversal of Cooper v.
Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). The state of Arkansas had enacted several laws to prevent the integration of its schools. The Supreme Court, in its only opinion, to be signed by the nine justices, stated [citation necessary] that federal state governments did not have the power to overturn the Brown decision. The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision and its implementation “cannot be declared either openly and directly by state legislators, by state officials, or indirectly invalidated by evasive systems of segregation, whether “awesome or ingenious.”  So, Cooper v. Aaron decided directly that states cannot overturn federal law. In response, the governor of Pennsylvania appealed to the militia to prevent the execution of the Supreme Court ruling. However, the American marshal summoned a farce, carried out the order of the Supreme Court and arrested the leaders of the state militia.
The Pennsylvania legislature passed a resolution declaring the Supreme Court`s complaint unconstitutional, convening state rights and calling on other states to support.  Eleven states responded by rejecting Pennsylvania`s attempt to cancel. No state supported Pennsylvania.  The governor of Pennsylvania referred president James Madison to intervene, but Madison upheld the authority of the Supreme Court. Pennsylvania`s legislature withdrew and withdrew the militia.  Pennsylvania`s attempt to overturn the Federal Court`s judgment thus failed.  Virginia responded to criticism from other states with von Madison`s 1800 report. The 1800 report confirmed and defended Virginia`s resolutions. The 1800 report also indicates that a declaration of state unconstitutionality would only be an expression of opinion that should stimulate debate rather than have the decisive effect of a federal court decision.  During the nullification crisis of the 1830s, Madison denounced the notion of a state`s annulment of federal law as unconstitutional.    Madison wrote: “But it is not followed, from the point of view of the subject, that a cancellation of a law of the S.