Sherwood v Walker Context <Back>

 

<Back>

  1. BulletCK= (R0,A,Con) with A = {Barren}, Con(Barren) = ¬Barren and R0 consists of the following rule:


  1. •   Price(800) ← Pregnant

  2. •    MuchMore(800,80) ←

  3. •   ¬Barren ← Pregnant

  4. •    Hold(Pregnant, E) ←


The intuition of A = {Barren} is that it is an accepted commonsense that cows are assumed to be barren unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary


  1. BulletKO = KE =CK


  1. BulletBO=BE= (R1,A,Con) with R1  = R1  ∪ {Price(80) ← Barren} representing a situation that both Sherwood and Walker fully believed (by commonsense) that the cow is barren with a price tag of 80 USD.


  1. BulletThere are no actions that the parties could do to check the pregnancy of the cow (note that the case happened in 1887). Hence no Cost function.

From these module the following arguments about factors of the case can be made:



  1. ✓Both parties made a mutual mistake in believing that the cow is barren since:

  2. • BO ⊢cr Barren  and BE ⊢cr Barren

  3. • CK ∪ {Pregnant} ⊢sk ¬Barren.

  4. • CK ⊢sk Hold(Pregnant,E)

  5. ✓The mistake violates a basic assumption of the contract since:

  6. •CK ∪ {Pregnant} ⊢sk Price(800)

  7. •CK ⊢sk MuchMore(800,80)

  8. ✓ Sherwood does not bear the risk of the mistake since BO ⊢sk  Barren and from CK, there are no arguments for ReasonableAction(CO, α).



Let MMIS be a module representing the doctrine of mutual mistake (as graphically presented in this page and formally presented in this article), it is easy to see that MMIS ⊢sk Rescind(Sherwood,  contract), i.e. Sherwood could rescind from performing the contract on the grounds of the mutual mistake doctrine.

Click here to view the demo of this case