Oswald v. Allen
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
417 F.2d 43 (1969)
Dr. Oswald (plaintiff), a Swiss coin collector who spoke almost no English, negotiated through an interpreter to buy Jane Allen's (defendant) coins, which were actually stored in two separate collections at a bank — the "Swiss Coin Collection" and the "Rarity Coin Collection" — though Oswald, shown both, did not realize they were distinct collections. Oswald's follow-up letter confirmed purchasing "all your Swiss coins," to which Allen responded only about delivery logistics, but when Allen later said she had miscalculated the coin count and let Oswald re-examine them, and Oswald wrote back reiterating his understanding for her to sign as a formality, Allen ultimately refused to sell, citing her children's objections. Oswald sued, and the trial court found Oswald believed he was buying all "Swiss coins" while Allen believed she was selling only the "Swiss Coin Collection," concluding no contract had formed.
Whether a contract for the sale of goods exists when the buyer and seller each hold a genuinely different, reasonable understanding of what was being sold, using ambiguous terminology, and neither party was aware of the other's differing interpretation.