Wood v. Boynton

Supreme Court of Wisconsin · 1885 · Contracts

Contractsunilateral mistakerescissionadequacy of considerationdiamondunilateral mistakemutual ignorance of valuerescission at law

Facts

The plaintiff owned a small stone whose nature and value she did not know and showed it to defendant Boynton, who also did not know what it was and said it might be a topaz. He offered one dollar for it as a specimen, and although she first refused, she later returned needing money and sold and delivered the stone to him for one dollar. It was later discovered that the stone was a rough diamond worth about $700. The plaintiff then tendered back the dollar plus interest and demanded return of the stone, but the defendants refused.

Issue

Can a vendor rescind a completed sale at law and recover the property when both parties were ignorant of the thing's true intrinsic value at the time of sale, but there was no fraud and no mistake about the identity of the thing sold and delivered?

Rule

A vendor may rescind a sale at law and recover the property only where the vendee procured the sale by fraud, or where the vendor delivered something other than the article actually sold because of a mistake in fact as to identity. Mere ignorance or mistake by both parties as to the intrinsic nature or value of the very thing sold, and mere inadequacy of price without fraud or warranty, do not justify rescission.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Madison, Nora Ellison found a dull green stone in an old sewing box and took it to Glen Street Jewelers, a small local shop. She told Owen Pike, the shop's owner, that she thought it was probably colored glass; he said he did not know what it was either and offered $8 as a curiosity, which she accepted and handed over. A week later, a gemologist identified the stone as an untreated emerald worth $12,000.

If Nora sues at law to recover the stone after tendering back the $8, who is likely to prevail?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a completed sale cannot be rescinded in an action at law merely because both parties were mistaken about the intrinsic nature or value of the very item sold. Title passed on sale and delivery. Without fraud by the buyer or a mistake in fact as to the identity of the thing delivered, Nora's later tender does not revest title.