## Facts

- A seller conveyed a tract of land to a buyer under an asserted understanding that the tract contained about 130 acres.
- After the sale, the buyer learned the tract actually contained about 117 acres, a deficiency of roughly 13 acres.
- The buyer sued to recover for the acreage deficiency (through a price adjustment or comparable relief).
- The seller argued he had acted in good faith and did not knowingly misstate the acreage.
- The trial court entered judgment for the buyer, and the seller appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a purchaser may obtain relief for a substantial deficiency in acreage when the parties shared a mutual, material mistake about the land’s quantity.
2. Whether the seller’s lack of fraudulent intent or knowledge of falsity bars the purchaser’s recovery for the deficiency.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the buyer.
- The court held that a mutual and material mistake as to acreage, which misled the purchaser about the quantity conveyed, justified relief.
- The seller’s good-faith belief in the incorrect acreage did not prevent recovery.

## Legal Principles

- A mutual, material mistake regarding the quantity of land conveyed can warrant equitable adjustment of the transaction (including abatement of the purchase price or similar relief).
- Proof of intentional fraud or knowledge of falsity is not required when the buyer’s bargain was materially affected by an acreage mistake shared by both parties.
- A substantial acreage discrepancy may be treated as material when quantity was a meaningful term of the bargain, making it unjust to require payment as if the higher acreage had been delivered.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the buyer to recover for a significant acreage deficiency because the sale rested on a mutual and material mistake about quantity; the seller’s good faith did not defeat the buyer’s right to relief.


Cabot v. Christie, 42 Vt. 121 (1869)