This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Beachcomber Coins v. Boskett: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=March 2, 1979 | |date=March 2, 1979 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|facts=In 1916, the Denver Mint produced a small # of dimes featuring the visage of Mercury, the Roman god of commerce & trickery. Because of their rarity, their value has skyrocketed; at the same time, these coins have become an attractive item for counterfeiters! | |facts=In 1916, the [https://www.usmint.gov/about/mint-tours-facilities/denver/visiting-the-denver-mint Denver Mint] produced a small # of dimes featuring the visage of Mercury, the Roman god of commerce & trickery. Because of their rarity, their value has skyrocketed; at the same time, these coins have become an attractive item for counterfeiters! | ||
One of these aforesaid Mercury dimes was the basis of a contract between Beachcomber Coins, Inc. ("Beachcomber") & Boskett. | One of these aforesaid Mercury dimes was the basis of a contract between Beachcomber Coins, Inc. ("Beachcomber") & Boskett. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Alas, the experts at the American Numismatic Society determined the coin Beach-comber had bought to be a counterfeit. | Alas, the experts at the American Numismatic Society determined the coin Beach-comber had bought to be a counterfeit. | ||
|procedural_history=Beach-comber sued Boskett to seek rescission of the purchase due to a mutual mistake regarding the genuineness of the coin. | |procedural_history=Beach-comber sued Boskett to seek rescission of the purchase due to a mutual mistake regarding the genuineness of the coin. | ||
The judge held in favor of Boskett; the judge stated that a professional coin purchaser assumed the risk of buying a fake coin. | |||
|issues=Is a contract voidable if both parties entered it based on a [[Contracts/Mistake#Mutual_mistake_versus_failure_of_mutual_assent|mutual mistake]]? | |||
|holding=Yes. If the parties enter a contract based on a mutual mistake of fact, the contract is voidable by either party. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/beachcomber-coins-inc-v-boskett | |link=https://casetext.com/case/beachcomber-coins-inc-v-boskett | ||
Revision as of 20:01, August 1, 2023
| Beachcomber Coins v. Boskett | |
| Court | Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division |
|---|---|
| Citation | 400 A.2d 78 |
| Date decided | March 2, 1979 |
Facts
In 1916, the Denver Mint produced a small # of dimes featuring the visage of Mercury, the Roman god of commerce & trickery. Because of their rarity, their value has skyrocketed; at the same time, these coins have become an attractive item for counterfeiters!
One of these aforesaid Mercury dimes was the basis of a contract between Beachcomber Coins, Inc. ("Beachcomber") & Boskett.
Beach-comber was a retailer in coins. Mr. Boskett was a part-time coin dealer. Boskett claimer to possess a Denver 1916 Mercury dime for $450.
After a 45-minute inspection of the said coin, Beach-comber agreed to pay $500 for it to Boskett.
Alas, the experts at the American Numismatic Society determined the coin Beach-comber had bought to be a counterfeit.Procedural History
Beach-comber sued Boskett to seek rescission of the purchase due to a mutual mistake regarding the genuineness of the coin.
The judge held in favor of Boskett; the judge stated that a professional coin purchaser assumed the risk of buying a fake coin.
