Sherwood v. Walker

Sherwood v. Walker is the classic case in contract law of mistake, where the parties were mutually mistaken as to the barrenness of a cow. ["Sherwood v. Walker", 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919 (1887).] [ [http://www.law.pitt.edu/madison/contracts/supplement/sherwood_v_walker.htm U. of Pittsburgh Law School web site] ]

The case is a staple of first year Law School contract law class discussions and text books. [ [http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/rubinfeldd/LS145/sherwood.html U. Of California, Law School at Berkeley web site citing Cooter and Ulen, 1st Edition (1988)] ] [ [http://academic.udayton.edu/caseslawecon/Contracts/sherwood%20v%20walker.pdf U. of Dayton Law School web site] (Adobe needed)] [ [http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/lessons/lesjun98.htm U. of Pittsburgh Law School web site, Jurist section] ]

A case brief

The case has been extensively briefed online. [ [http://lawschool.mikeshecket.com/contracts/sherwoodvwalker.htm Sherwood v. Walker ] ] [ [http://www.4lawschool.com/contracts/sherwood.shtml Sherwood v. Walker ] ] What follows is a summary of the case briefs.

In May 1886, Hiram Walker, a cattle breeder (and grocer and distiller), made a contract with Theodore Sherwood, another farmer and a banker, to sell him a cow. If the cow was barren (or a heifer), it was worth only about $80 - compared to upwards of $1,000 if it were able to breed, give birth to calves and thus produce tons of milk per year. Sherwood purchased an apparently barren heifer, Rose 2nd of Aberlone for 5.5 cents per pound. Before the exchange was completed, Walker discovered the cow was pregnant and refused to complete the sale. Sherwood sued him. The case was heard in 1887 by the Supreme Court of Michigan.

The issue was, (under Michigan contract law) "Can the defendant (Walker) refuse to sell the cow, because the parties did not know that the cow was actually fertile?"

The court held, that if both parties thought the cow was barren (a question for the jury), the contract was voidable on grounds of mutual mistake.

The court reasoned by using the traditional test of the mistake "relating to the substance of the consideration." In other words, because both parties were mistaken, the consideration failed for the cow as she actually was a cow, not a barren animal or heifer.

References

ee also

* Commercial law
* Contract
* Contract law
* Meeting of the minds
* mistake
* Hiram Walker
* "Bell v. Lever Brothers Ltd."
* "Hartog v. Colin & Shields"
* "Smith v. Hughes"