The Trial Of The Mill Farm - 1883 Words

â€Å"In the spring of 1886 the plaintiff, learning that the defendants had some polled Angus cattle for sale, was desirous of purchasing some of that breed, and, meeting the defendants, or some of them, at Walkerville, inquired about them, and was informed that they had none at Walkerville, but had a few head left on their farm in Greenfield, and they asked the plaintiff to go and see them, stating that in all probability they were sterile and would not breed. In accordance with said request, the plaintiff, on the fifth day of May, went out and looked at the defendants cattle at Greenfield, and found one called Rose 2d, which he wished to purchase, and the terms were finally agreed upon at five and one-half cents per pound, live†¦show more content†¦2. Where, in such a case, the thing actually delivered or received is different in substance from the thing bargained for and intended to be sold, there is no contract; but if it be only a difference in some quality or acciden t, even though the mistake may have been the actuating motive to the purchaser or seller, or both of them, the contract remains binding. 3. Where a cow was contracted to be sold upon the understanding of both parties that she was barren and useless for breeding purposes, and it appeared that such was not the case, -- Held, that the vendors had a right to rescind the contract, and refuse to deliver the property. Further reading on the American case of Sherwood v. Walker shows that, â€Å"Tthe contract made was not within the statute of frauds, and that payment for the property was not a condition precedent to the passing of the title from the defendants to the plaintiff. Furthermore I agree that the plaintiff was entitled to a delivery of the property to him when the suit was brought, unless there was a mistake made which would invalidate the contract; and no such mistake can be found. There is no pretense that there was any fraud or concealment in the case, and an intimation or insinuation