Warning

Info

Table of Contents
UnreasonableWoman, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Beachcomber Coins v. Boskett

(1979)

New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division - 166 N.J. Super. 442

tl;dr:

Defendant sold a dime to a coin dealer for $500, claiming that it was minted in Denver. The coin turned out to be a dupe. The coin dealer sought rescission.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In the 1979 case, Beachcomber Coins v. Boskett, New Jersey's Appellate Division considered an important issue related to unilateral mistake in contract law. This case provided clarity on when a contract may be voidable due to a unilateral mistake and set guidelines for deciding when a contract should be rescinded based on such a mistake.

Plaintiff Beachcomber Coins ("BC") bought a dime from Defendant Boskett that purportedly was minted in 1916 in Denver. Before buying, BC inspected the coin for 15-45 minutes. BC later tried to obtain a certificate of authentication and learned that the coin was a counterfeit.

BC brought action to rescind the contract due to mutual mistake of fact. The trial court held for Defendant on the ground that customary coin dealing procedures lead to a caveat emptor, or buyer beware, mentality of assuming risk.

Beachcomber Coins appealed.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Beachcomber Coins v. Boskett

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Beachcomber Coins v. Boskett case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingBeachcomber Coins v. Boskett case brief facts & holding

Facts:Plaintiff Beachcomber Coins ("BC") bought a dime from Defendant Boskett...

Holding:Reversed. Where parties enter a contract and are under a...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Beachcomber Coins v. Boskett case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Beachcomber Coins v. Boskett | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Conford, P. J. A. D.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The plaintiff, a retail dealer in coins, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, a part-time coin dealer, seeking rescission of a purchase of a dime purportedly minted in 1916 at Denver for $500 due to a mutual mistake of fact as to the genuineness of the coin. The trial court found that the coin tendered back to the defendant by the plaintiff was the one he sold, but erred in not addressing whether the mistake was material to the contract. The trial judge ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that customary "coin dealing procedures" require a dealer purchasing a coin to investigate its genuineness and assume the risk of purchase if the investigation is faulty. However, the judge acknowledged that the evidence satisfied the ordinary requisites of the rule of rescission for mutual mistake of fact. The case is a classic example of rescission for mutual mistake of fact, but the lower court erred in not considering whether the customary "coin dealing procedures" were reasonable under the circumstances. Mutual mistake of fact in contracts occurs when both parties enter into a transaction based on a mistaken belief about a fact that affects their contractual relationship. If enforcing the contract would be significantly more burdensome than if the fact was as they believed it to be, either party can void the contract. Negligent failure to discover a fact that both parties are mistaken about does not prevent rescission or reformation.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Beachcomber Coins v. Boskett case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Beachcomber Coins v. Boskett case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Beachcomber Coins v. Boskett

Chat for Beachcomber Coins v. Boskett
brief-189
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.