Connection lost
Server error
Sherwood v. Walker Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
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 seller agreed to sell a cow believed by both parties to be barren for a low price. When the cow was discovered to be pregnant and far more valuable, the seller refused delivery. The court permitted the seller to rescind the contract due to a mutual mistake.
Legal Significance: This case is a foundational example of the doctrine of mutual mistake, establishing that a mistake regarding the fundamental nature or substance of the subject matter, rather than mere quality, can render a contract voidable.
Sherwood v. Walker 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
The plaintiff, Sherwood, contracted to purchase a cow, “Rose 2d of Aberlone,” from the defendants, Walker et al. The defendants were breeders of fine cattle but believed this particular cow was barren and would not breed. Both parties negotiated the sale based on this shared assumption. The agreed price was five and a half cents per pound, a price reflecting the cow’s value for beef, not as a breeder. The total price was approximately $80. Before the plaintiff took possession of the cow, the defendants discovered that she was, in fact, pregnant. A fertile cow of her breed was worth between $750 and $1,000. Upon this discovery, the defendants refused to deliver the cow. The plaintiff tendered the agreed-upon price and brought an action of replevin to compel delivery. Both parties conceded at trial that they believed the cow was barren at the time the contract was made.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a party rescind a contract for the sale of a specific good where both parties were mistaken as to a fundamental characteristic of that good which goes to the very substance of the agreement?
Yes. The court held that the defendants had the right to rescind 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
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
Can a party rescind a contract for the sale of a specific good where both parties were mistaken as to a fundamental characteristic of that good which goes to the very substance of the agreement?
Conclusion
This case provides the classic formulation of the mutual mistake doctrine, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna al
Legal Rule
A party may avoid a contract if the parties' consent was founded 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 co
Legal Analysis
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Morse, distinguished between a mistake as 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 volupta
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A contract is voidable for mutual mistake if the mistake goes