Sherwood V. Barren Cow On May 15th, 1887)

In common law tort cases, courts must decide the outcome based first on what is the most fair for both parties and then on precedent, but if a higher court finds that a lower court was in error they may overturn that precedent. This was the case in Sherwood v. Walker. We will review the initial facts of the case, including: the initial negotiation and agreement, the denial of the sale, the first trial and the Michigan Supreme court reversal. We will look at the legal issues involved and approach of the courts and how that approach was applied. Finally, we will look at how the court’s conclusion might be applied in a case today by analyzing a detailed fictitious case, the arguments of both parties and the court’s decision.

Buying a Barren Cow

Sherwood for the sum of $80 (Sherwood v. Walker, 1887). This price was agreed upon because the cow was believed to be barren. It is important to note that court records show both parties believed this to be the case, but if the cow was not barren would bring between $750 and $1,000(Sherwood v. Walker, 1887). Prior to Sherwood taking possession of the cow, Walker learned that it was with calf (not barren) and decided to rescind the sale by not delivering the cow to Sherwood (Sherwood v. Walker, 1887). Sherwood brought a replevin action, which is to get an order from a judge to order possession until settled in court (FindLaw, n.d.). Walker appealed to the, Sherwood won, and then Walker appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court and this time was successful (Sherwood v. Walker,

There is no need for a mobile application telling you what states honor reciprocity, as they now all do. Smith and Wesson demand a total refund from Legal Heat. Legal Heat denies the refund stating that they accepted payment and provided the codes and therefore the contract is complete and it is not their fault the US Government changed the law. Smith and Wesson sued Legal Heat. Legal Heat argued that there was no warranty on the mobile application, either expressed or implied other than in regards to it working properly on modern mobile operating systems and being updated as the laws surrounding concealed carry between states were changed. Since all of these factors have been met there were no grounds for the contract to be rescinded. Further, Legal Heat argued that Smith and Wesson had acknowledged the risk, however remote, that reciprocity could be passed in the