Wood v. Boynton
Citation and Court
Wood v. Boynton, 64 Wis. 265 (Wis. 1885)
Facts
Wood found an unusual small stone and took it to a jeweler (Boynton), who was unsure what it was and offered her 1. The stone turned out to be an uncut diamond worth $700. Wood brought suit to rescind the sale on grounds of mutual mistake, arguing both parties were unaware of the stone’s true nature and value.
Issue
Whether a seller who sold an item of unknown identity and value may rescind the sale on the ground of mutual mistake when the item turns out to be far more valuable than either party realized.
Holding
The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied rescission, holding that the parties were aware of their uncertainty about the stone’s identity, and Wood assumed the risk of the transaction by agreeing to sell it without first having it identified.
Rule / Doctrine
A unilateral or mutual mistake about the value or quality of an item does not justify rescission when the parties were aware of their uncertainty and the complaining party assumed the risk. A party who consciously chooses to proceed despite known uncertainty cannot later claim mutual mistake as a basis for rescission.
Significance
A key case distinguishing mistake about the existence or basic nature of a subject matter (which may justify rescission) from mistake about value or quality (which generally does not). Wood knowingly sold an unidentified stone; she assumed the risk. Contrasts with Jackson v. Seymour, where the seller sought rescission after discovering undisclosed valuable timber on land he thought was ordinary farmland.