There is a famous American case involving the sale of a cow called "Sherwood v. Walker-Smith Co." This case, also known as the "Case of the Red Cow," took place in 1887 in Michigan. It is indeed considered a landmark contract law case. In Sherwood v. Walker-Smith Co., the plaintiff, Mary Sherwood, purchased a cow from the defendant, Walker-Smith Co., for $80. Both parties believed the cow to be barren (infertile). However, shortly after the sale, it was discovered that the cow was actually pregnant and worth significantly more than the purchase price (Admin & Admin, 2020). Sherwood wanted to keep the cow and demanded the fulfillment of the contract at the agreed price, while Walker-Smith Co. argued that there was a mutual mistake about the …show more content…
The court held that the mutual mistake about the cow's fertility did not make the contract void, as it was an essential term of the agreement. The court stated that the contract was binding and enforceable because the parties had agreed to take the risk of the cow's condition, even if mistaken (Admin & Admin, 2020). The decision in Sherwood v. Walker-Smith Co. had a significant impact on contract law by establishing the principle that a mutual mistake of fact, even if material, does not necessarily make a contract voidable. Instead, the court emphasized that the parties' intentions, as expressed in the contract, should be respected (Admin & Admin, …show more content…
In 1887, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court's ruling, affirming that the contract was voidable due to the mutual mistake regarding the cow's condition. The Court held that the parties were not bound by the contract because their agreement was based on a shared mistake of fact, which significantly affected the essence of the agreement. Sherwood v. Walker is significant in contract law for establishing the principle that a mutual mistake of material fact can render a contract voidable. It emphasized the importance of the parties' shared understanding and knowledge of the subject matter of the contract. The case remains influential in contract law jurisprudence, particularly in the context of mutual mistake and the impact on contractual enforceability (Kentlaw,