Katie and Jen were walking through the woods when Katie discovers a large piece of quartz. Both agree that it is the largest piece of quartz that either have seen. Jen offers Katie $50 for the stone and Katie accepts. Later the quartz is determined to be worth $600. Which of the following is true?
(i need help.. i think its d, but i just wanted to be sure)
a. there has been a bilateral mistake as to fact and either may enforce the contract.
b. there has been a bilateral mistake as to judgement and either may enforce the contract.
c. there has been a bilateral mistake as to fact and either may rescind the contract.
d. there has been a bilateral mistake as to judgement and either may rescind the contract.
2007-09-21 05:56:52 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The answer is A. Mistake as to judgment is not a defense to contract. And there really is not a mistake of fact for that matter as both were negotiating the value of a piece of quartz. mistake of value is not a defense.
Lastly, there are no equitable principles to rely on here - no detrimental reliance - no one relied on anything but their poor judgment.
So A is the Best answer but technically none of the answers are correct.
2007-09-21 08:38:14 · answer #1 · answered by Daniel 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say either A or B -- either the mistake of fact is that the rock is Quartz, or the mistake of judgment is that the value of the Quarts rock is $50.
But since both are making the same mistake, and both are accepting the same facts and the same evaluation as a premise to the contract -- the contract is enforcible.
Arguments could be made that C would apply -- that the bilateral mistake of fact is so severe (if the rock were diamond, rather than quartz) that it goes to the heart of the contract and mandates rescission on equitable grounds.
However, the court will generally not interfere in matters of valuation -- good consideration was provided by both parties, so D would not apply.
2007-09-21 06:36:09 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One important element in the fact pattern is missing: who owns the woods through which they are walking? If Jen own sthe woods, then the contract is rescindable for mutual mistake of fact (both thought Katie owned the quartz as it is part of the woods, but Jen actually owned it. No meeting of the minds - "D"). If Katie owns the woods it is an enforceable contract - judgment is irrelevant and there is no mistake of fact. If the woods are owned by a third party, then both are mistaken as to a pertinent fact (who owns the quartz), and "D" is again the correct answer. See, supra. ("See, supra" means "please refer to the arguement listed above" in legalese.)
2007-09-21 13:12:09 · answer #3 · answered by mcmufin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think none of these - think outside the box here - the quartz is owned by the person that owns the property where it was found, not by either Katie or Jen.
Katie cannot sell Jen that which she does not own
2007-09-21 07:45:40 · answer #4 · answered by roadrunner426440 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although I don't usually answer "homework" questions, I think the answer is "A". Jen offered a verbal contract to Katie which was accepted (and concluded) when she took the money. If you have bad judgement, it doe's not nullify a contract.
2007-09-21 06:05:34 · answer #5 · answered by sensible_man 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say B. The person who sold the rock used poor judgement, but he/she may NOT renege on the contract.
2007-09-21 06:05:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋