mark was a muktihandicapped student needing special education. mark parnets and the school board signed ann agreement that required the board to pay the placement costs for mark at a residential school. the Bemedoctome school at the current annual rate of $30.000. The agreement required the board to pay for the next year 90 perecnt of any increase over the previous rate. The board was to pay no other costs for mark placemnet. Several months later. the board received an estimate of $62.487 for the nest year's cost at Benedictine for mark. The $62487 included the services of a one-to- one aide for mark during his waking hour. .The board refused to pay for the aide. In the proceeding that followed.Mark parents asserted that because the need for the aide was not anticipated when the agreemnet was signed. there was a mutual mistake of fact and the agreement was defective. Was it?

To determine whether the agreement between Mark's parents and the school board is defective due to a mutual mistake of fact, let's analyze the situation.

A mutual mistake of fact occurs when both parties to a contract hold a mistaken belief about a fundamental aspect of the agreement. In this case, the disagreement arises from the inclusion of the services of a one-to-one aide for Mark during his waking hours, which was not anticipated when the agreement was signed.

To assess the defectiveness of the agreement, we need to consider the following factors:

1. Anticipation of the one-to-one aide: At the time of signing the agreement, it should be determined whether the need for a one-to-one aide for Mark during his waking hours was reasonably foreseeable. If it was not, there may indeed be a mutual mistake of fact.

2. Impact on the agreement: The next step is to evaluate the consequence of this mistake on the overall agreement. If the inclusion of the one-to-one aide significantly affects the nature or core purpose of the agreement, it may render it defective.

3. Intent of the parties: It is essential to examine the intentions of both parties at the time of signing the agreement. Did they contemplate the possibility of additional services like a one-to-one aide, or did they believe that the agreement encompassed all necessary costs for Mark's placement?

Considering these factors, it appears that Mark's parents may have a valid argument for a mutual mistake of fact, as the need for the one-to-one aide was not anticipated at the time the agreement was signed. However, further analysis of the specific terms and circumstances surrounding the agreement would be necessary to arrive at a definitive conclusion. It is recommended that you consult legal experts or professionals for precise advice in this matter.