Sherwood v. Walker case brief summary
66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919
CASE SYNOPSIS:
Defendants appealed from a judgment of the Wayne County Circuit Court (Michigan) in favor of plaintiff in a replevin action.
FACTS:
-The plaintiff contracted to buy a cow from the defendant for a sum to be determined after the cow was weighed.
-When the defendant refused to deliver the bovine, the plaintiff brought a replevin action, arguing that title had passed.
-Judgment was entered for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.
HOLDING:
-The court reversed and ordered for a new trial.
-While the court agreed with plaintiff that there were no conditions precedent to the passage of title, defendant could avoid the contract under the theory of mistake.
ANALYSIS:
-Here, both parties believed the cow to be barren when they discussed the price, but it was later learned by that defendant that the cow was actually pregnant, and therefore, worth a lot more than expected.
-This particular fact was a material issue and went to the actual substance of the contract.
RULES:
-Where there was mutual mistake as to the substance of the contract, defendant had a right to rescind.
OUTCOME: Judgment reversed and new trial granted on the grounds that defendant had right to rescind contract, because there was a mutual mistake as to the substance of the contract.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919
CASE SYNOPSIS:
Defendants appealed from a judgment of the Wayne County Circuit Court (Michigan) in favor of plaintiff in a replevin action.
FACTS:
-The plaintiff contracted to buy a cow from the defendant for a sum to be determined after the cow was weighed.
-When the defendant refused to deliver the bovine, the plaintiff brought a replevin action, arguing that title had passed.
-Judgment was entered for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.
HOLDING:
-The court reversed and ordered for a new trial.
-While the court agreed with plaintiff that there were no conditions precedent to the passage of title, defendant could avoid the contract under the theory of mistake.
ANALYSIS:
-Here, both parties believed the cow to be barren when they discussed the price, but it was later learned by that defendant that the cow was actually pregnant, and therefore, worth a lot more than expected.
-This particular fact was a material issue and went to the actual substance of the contract.
RULES:
-Where there was mutual mistake as to the substance of the contract, defendant had a right to rescind.
OUTCOME: Judgment reversed and new trial granted on the grounds that defendant had right to rescind contract, because there was a mutual mistake as to the substance of the contract.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment