## Facts

- An elderly violin collector owned a collection that included two violins both parties believed to be a Stradivarius (dated 1717) and a Guarnerius.
- A prominent violinist visited the collector’s home to view the collection and asked the price of a violin he identified as a “Stradivarius,” then asked the price of another he identified as a “Guarnerius.”
- The parties agreed on a total price of $8,000 for both violins, with $2,000 paid immediately and the balance payable in monthly installments.
- The buyer signed a written memorandum describing the instruments as “one violin by Joseph Guarnerius and one violin by Stradivarius dated 1717.”
- The seller executed a bill of sale describing the same instruments and granting the buyer a right to exchange them for others in the seller’s collection.
- The trial court found the seller made no representations or warranties of authenticity; both parties honestly believed the instruments were made by Stradivarius and Guarnerius.
- The instruments were later determined to be copies worth no more than $300 total.
- The buyer refused to pay the remaining $6,000, and the seller’s estate sued to recover the unpaid balance.

## Issues

1. Whether a contract to pay $8,000 for specified violins was enforceable when both parties were mutually mistaken that the instruments were genuine Stradivarius and Guarnerius violins.
2. Whether the mistake concerned the identity and essential character of the subject matter (rather than mere value), such that enforcement of the price should be denied.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed judgment for the buyer.
- The court held that the parties’ shared, material mistake about the authenticity and identity of the violins prevented enforcement of the agreement for the unpaid balance.
- Because the transaction was for specific, uniquely valuable instruments as described in the writings, and those instruments did not exist as believed, the seller’s estate could not compel payment of the remaining $6,000.

## Legal Principles

- A contract may be unenforceable where both parties are innocently and mutually mistaken as to a basic, essential fact that goes to the identity or fundamental character of the subject matter.
- A mutual mistake about the essence of the consideration differs from a mistake about value; a mere bad bargain based on misjudged value typically remains binding, but an error about what the thing is may defeat enforcement.
- The absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or an express warranty does not preclude relief when mutual mistake prevents a meeting of the minds on the actual subject matter exchanged.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed denial of the seller’s claim for the unpaid purchase price because both parties contracted on the shared but false assumption that the violins were authentic masterpieces, making the mistake fundamental to the identity and substance of the bargain.


Smith v. Zimbalist, 2 Cal. App. 2d 324 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)