SHERWOOD v. WALKER

Hiram Walker a banker that lived in Plymouth, Wayne County sought to purchase a cow from Hiriam Walker & Sons, who were breeders and importers at the time. On May 5, 1886, Walker went to Greenfield Farm and he choose “Rose 2d of Aberlone”. He was told by Walker that the cow was probably barren and it would not be able to breed.

Walker informed Sherwood that the price of the cow would be five and one-half cents per pound, live weight, with fifty pounds of shrinkage because she was barren. If the cow was able to breed it would be worth between $750.00 and $1000.00.

Sherwood asked the Walker to confirm the sale in writing. This is what the letter read:
"WALKERVILLE, May 15, 1886.
"T.C. Sherwood, President, …show more content…
The judge also instructed the jury that it did not matter whether the cow was with calf or not, that should have no bearing on their contract.
Within the Supreme Court the approach was different; the court did take into consideration the status of the cow, whether she was barren or a breeder.
How did the court apply its approach to the facts of the case?
Within the Michigan Supreme Court, the final ruling on this case, the courts took into the consideration of the status of the cow. It was understood by the sale price of the cow that the cow was believed to be barren and not a breeder. Therefore, the contract was not enforceable since it was later discovered, before any monies changed hands that the cow was not barren and in deed was pregnant with a calf. The courts agreed that it was a mutual mistake by both parties to have believed that the cow was barren.

Provide a detailed example of how the court's conclusion might be applied in a modern business