Connection lost
Server error
Dr. Werner Oswald v. Jane B. Allen Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A buyer and seller of Swiss coins had different understandings of which coins were included in the sale. The court found no contract was formed due to the ambiguity of the term “Swiss Coin Collection,” as there was no meeting of the minds.
Legal Significance: This case exemplifies the rule from Raffles v. Wichelhaus: no contract is formed when a material term is latently ambiguous, both parties have different but reasonable interpretations, and neither party knows or should know of the other’s interpretation.
Dr. Werner Oswald v. Jane B. Allen Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Dr. Oswald, a Swiss coin collector, negotiated to purchase coins from Mrs. Allen. Allen owned two separate collections containing Swiss coins: the “Swiss Coin Collection” and the “Rarity Coin Collection.” After viewing coins from both, Oswald, who negotiated through an agent due to a language barrier, made a $50,000 offer. Oswald subjectively believed his offer was for all of Allen’s Swiss coins from both collections. Allen, however, reasonably believed the offer pertained only to the specific collection formally named the “Swiss Coin Collection.” The parties’ subsequent correspondence used ambiguous terms like “all your Swiss coins” and referred to the “Swiss Coin Collection.” When Allen prepared to deliver only the coins from the “Swiss Coin Collection,” Oswald sued to enforce his understanding of the agreement. The trial court found that no contract existed because the parties had different, reasonable understandings of the subject matter.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Is an enforceable contract formed when a material term of an agreement is ambiguous and the parties attach different, reasonable meanings to that term, with neither party having reason to know of the other’s meaning?
No, an enforceable contract was not formed. The court affirmed the lower Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in vol
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Is an enforceable contract formed when a material term of an agreement is ambiguous and the parties attach different, reasonable meanings to that term, with neither party having reason to know of the other’s meaning?
Conclusion
The case is a significant modern application of the mutual mistake doctrine, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
Legal Rule
When any of the terms used to express an agreement is ambivalent, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo conse
Legal Analysis
The court's primary reasoning rests on the classic contract formation doctrine articulated Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cill
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- No contract is formed when a material term is latently ambiguous
