Stong v. Lane
66 Minn. 94 · Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1896
Facts
Plaintiff sought to buy a lot, and a third party mistakenly pointed out Lot A. Defendant, an agent, had Lot B for sale, which was on the opposite side of the street but otherwise similarly described. Plaintiff negotiated with defendant, believing he was buying Lot A, while defendant believed he was selling Lot B, both honestly mistaken. Plaintiff paid a $100 deposit, but upon discovering the mistake, demanded his money back, which defendant refused.
Procedural history
The trial judge instructed the jury that a contract requires a meeting of the minds regarding the same lot. The current court affirmed the lower court's order, finding no prejudicial error in the trial judge's rulings or charge to the jury.
Issue
Can a buyer rescind a contract and recover money paid when there was an honest, mutual mistake regarding the identity of the subject matter (the specific lot) due to an ambiguous description, even if the seller subsequently changed his position?
Holding
Yes, the plaintiff is entitled to rescind the contract and recover the $100. The court found that there was no meeting of the minds on the subject matter, and the defendant's subsequent actions of purchasing the lot himself did not create an estoppel against the plaintiff.
Rule
When parties to a contract are under an honest, mutual mistake as to the identity of the subject matter, especially when the description is ambiguous and one party assumes it refers to a different item than the other, there is no meeting of the minds, and thus no binding contract, allowing for rescission.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.