Sherwood V. Walker

FACTS:

The Walkers are importers and breeders of cattle. The plaintiff, Sherwood, was interested in purchasing some cattle and went to their Greenfield farm to see if there were any there that suited him. He was told “that they were probably barren, and would not breed,” (p. 569). Sherwood then called and said he wanted to purchase Rose. The price was agreed to five and one-half cents per pound, live weight, fifty pounds shrinkage which was confirmed in writing. Upon Sherwood going to the farm to present the letter, he was informed that Walker instructed for the cow to not be delivered. Walker had learned that Rose was pregnant and therefore did not want to sell her, as her value would be increased knowing that she was able to bear calves.

ISSUE: Whether Sherwood was able to void the sale, after both parties agreed, based on the new information that Rose was not barren.

HOLDING: Yes

REASONING: You may refuse a sale if the contract was made due to a mutual mistake on the item that was being sold. The sale would not have been made if not for this mistake in Rose’s ability to carry offspring. This goes to the quality of the animal based on its use. If she was known by both parties to be able to carry offspring, her value would have been almost 10 times of what she was paid for.

CRITIQUE:

I do not agree with the holding and the reasoning for the case of Sherwood v. Walker. The contract of sale was made because she was “probably” barren. I rest the responsibility of determining if she was bearing on the defendant, Walker, for knowing whether his cattle were able to breed. If he was not completely informed about the condition of his cattle, his merchandise, he is responsible for upholding any of the contracts

...