T206 Young

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Bulldog,

If you want to pretend to be a lawyer a bit longer, Ive found a nice case for you to read:

Wood v Boynton, 225 N.W. 42 [1885]

Since your reading comprehension needs work, Ive summarized the case for you:

Relevant Facts: Defendant is in the jewelry business. Plaintiff was the owner of a small stone - the nature and value of which she was ignorant. Pl sold the stone to the Def for $1. Afterward Pl learned that the stone was actually a roughcut diamond (she was under the impression that the stone was a common piece of topaz) and was worth about $700 and attempted to tender the $1 plus $.10 interest to the Def demanding the return of the stone. Def refused.

Legal Issue(s): Whether the Pl could rescind the sale of the uncut diamond upon discovery that the stone was something other than she believed it to be when sold and worth considerably more than the price paid?

Court’s Holding (and please pay attention here): No

Law or Rule(s): The only reasons for rescinding a sale and revesting title for the recovery of possession against the vendee are 1) that the vendee was guilty of some fraud in procuring the sale to be made to him; 2) that there was a mistake made by the vendor in delivering an article which was not the article sold, - a mistake in fact as to the identity of the thing sold with the thing delivered.

Court Rationale: The Pl’s own evidence shows that she was not induced to make the sale she did by any fraud or unfair dealings on the part of the Def. Both were entirely ignorant at the time of the character and nature of the stone and its intrinsic value. If she chose to sell it w/o further investigation as to its intrinsic value to a person who was guilty of no fraud or unfairness which induced her to sell it for a small sum, she cannot repudiate the sale afterwards b/c she ascertained that she made a bad bargain. There was no warranty made and unless Pl could show that Pl had been told it was a diamond or that the Def knew the stone was a diamond, there could be no rescission based on fraud. In the absence of fraud or warranty, the value of the property sold, as compared with the price paid, is no ground for a recission of a sale.