Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Wisconsin Supreme Court - 64 Wis. 265
tl;dr:
A woman sold a stone to a guy. Both of them weren't sure what it was, so she sold it for $1. It turned out, the stone was an uncut diamond worth $1,000.Video Summary
Case Summary
In 1885, the Wood v. Boynton case in the Wisconsin Supreme Court tackled a significant issue about the mutual mistake principle in contract law. The case set a legal precedent for mutual mistake and clarified when a contract could be canceled because of a mutual mistake of fact.
Wood sold Boynton a small stone, thinking it was a common quartz. They agreed on a price, and Boynton took the stone. Later, they found out it was an uncut diamond worth much more. Wood sued Boynton, aiming to cancel the contract and get the diamond back, claiming a mutual mistake.
The trial court sided with Boynton, and Wood appealed, arguing that the mutual mistake about the stone's real identity should make the contract voidable.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court maintained the trial court's decision, ruling that the contract couldn't be canceled because of a mutual mistake. The court explained that a mutual mistake could only justify canceling a contract if the mistake involves a material fact crucial to the contract. In this case, the true nature of the stone wasn't a vital fact to the contract, as both parties thought they were making a valid agreement for a quartz piece. The court also pointed out that both parties assumed the risk of the stone being different from their belief.
The Wood v. Boynton case is essential because it clarified mutual mistake and set a precedent for when a contract can be canceled due to a mutual mistake of fact. This decision guided courts and parties in contract disputes, ensuring that contracts would only be canceled when the mutual mistake concerns a crucial material fact in the contract.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The plaintiff sold an uncut diamond to one of the defendants for one dollar, unaware of its true value. After discovering its value, the plaintiff offered to return the dollar and demanded the diamond's return, but the defendants refused. The plaintiff sought to recover the diamond in this action. The plaintiff can only maintain her action if she can rescind the sale and revest the title in herself. This can only be done if the vendee committed fraud or if there was a mistake in the identity of the thing sold. If the thing delivered was not the thing sold, then no title ever passed to the vendee. The circuit judge erred in directing the jury to find a verdict for the defendants.
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.