New! H2O now has access to new and up-to-date cases via CourtListener and the Caselaw Access Project. Click here for more info.

Main Content

Casebook Read Credits
Contracts: Cases and Materials
Resource 9 . 2 . 5
less than a minute

Notes - Ricketts v. Pennsylvania R.R. (Frank, J., concurring)

Kessler, Gilmore & Kronman

NOTE

1. Judge Learned Hand's majority opinion in the Ricketts case is reprinted infra p. 883.

2. Illustration 2 to §71 (Undisclosed Understanding of Offeror or Offeree, When Material) of the Restatement First puts the following hypothetical case:

A says to B, "I offer to sell you my horse for $100." B, knowing that A intends to offer to sell his cow, not his horse for that price, and that the use of the word "horse" is a slip of the tongue, replies, "I accept." There is no contract for the sale of either the horse or the cow.

In Restatement Second, the material covered in §71 of the original Restatement appears in §21A (Effect of Misunderstanding). Illustration 5 to §21A is as follows:

A says to B, "I offer to sell you my horse for $100." B, knowing that A intends to offer to sell his cow for that price, not his horse, and that the word "horse" is a slip of the tongue, replies, "I accept." There is a contract for the sale of the cow and not of the horse.

3. Does the shift between the two Restatements in the solution proposed for the absurd horse-cow hypothetical seem to signify a changing attitude toward the controversy between subjectivists and objectivists?

This book, and all H2O books, are Creative Commons licensed for sharing and re-use with the exception of certain excerpts. Any excerpts from the Restatements of the Law, Principles of the Law, and the Model Penal Code are copyright by The American Law Institute. Excerpts are reproduced with permission, not as part of a Creative Commons license.