Oswald v. Allen

Jane Allen (defendant) owned multiple collections of valuable coins, including a Swiss coin collection. The collections were maintained in separate containers, with each coin being stored in a small envelope marked with its collection’s identifying number. Werner Oswald (plaintiff) wanted to purchase Allen’s Swiss coins. Oswald, accompanied by Allen, inspected three of Allen’s collections, namely, the Swiss collection, the rarity collection, and the German ecclesiastical collection. Oswald informed Allen that a Wallis Ducat coin from the German collection belonged in the Swiss collection, and Allen stated intent to transfer it to that collection. While inspecting the Swiss collection, Oswald made detailed notes. At the bottom of those notes, he also listed six coins from the rarity collection that were of Swiss origin. The parties, with Oswald acting through an interpreter, reached an oral agreement for the sale of the Swiss coin collection to Oswald for $50,000. However, the parties had different understandings as to what coins were being sold. Oswald believed he was purchasing all Swiss coins owned by Allen, namely the coins in the designated Swiss collection, the Wallis Ducat, and the Swiss coins from the rarity collection. In contrast, Allen thought she was selling only the coins in the designated Swiss collection plus the Wallis Ducat, not any coins from the rarity collection. Neither party had reason to know of the other’s belief or to suspect that the meaning of the term Swiss coin collection was ambiguous. When Oswald’s agent sent a letter to Allen shortly before the sale transaction was to occur, Allen realized that Oswald was expecting to receive all the Swiss coins in Allen’s possession. Allen refused to proceed with the sale. Oswald then sued Allen in district court, seeking specific performance of the alleged sales contract, which would have forced Allen to proceed with the sale. Allen countered that there was no contract because there was never a meeting of the minds as to the goods being sold. The district court considered the parties’ arguments.