It is 'probably true' that all these contracts heavily favored the landowner. He kept the books and could manipulate costs and profits at will. And of course: no profit, no profit share and payment for the sharecropper. Also, it is true that many landowners had a 'company store' that the sharecroppers were obliged to use. So, even if there was a profit share, most or all of it went to the payment of the debt run up at that store.
the land owner was more likely to gain from it
The portion of the crop the landowner owed to the sharecropper
The portion of the crop the landowner owned to the sharecropper
The portion of the crop the landowner owed to the sharecropper
cdfvv
They favored the landowner.
The land owners took advantage of the sharecroppers leaving them poor and in need.
They had no choice about continuing to work.
void contracts are contracts that technically don't exist mainly due to duress while an unenforceable contracts are contracts that can not be enforced
Sharecropping. This became a common practice in the US just after the Civil War during Reconstruction.sharecropperIs called a serf. Or in Latin America, a peon.The term is "Sharecropper"The difference between a serf and a sharecropper is that a serf could not leave the land without the owners permission, while a sharecropper could move elsewhere if he wished.a serfsharecropper
"Futures" and "Futures contracts" are the same thing.
If there is no agreement between the landowner and the property manager that gives the property manager authority to sign in the name of the landowner, and no request for permission to do so, then the act of the property manager executing a lease agreement with a tenant might not be legal.
Whether a farmer can sue a landowner for not being allowed to harvest their crop depends on the wording of the contract between the two parties. Assuming the contract was correctly prepared the answer would be yes.