Michael Van Gough an attorney experienced in real estate transactions and his wife Kimberly were interested in buying certain property being sold by Carol Martin for her former husband Johnny Martin. When Van Gough asked Carol Martin if there had been any appraisals of the property, she replied that there had been several appraisals, ranging from $175,000 to $192,000. (At trial, Carol claimed that she understood the term appraisal to mean any opinion as to the market value of the house.)
The Van Gough did not request a written appraisal of the property until after signing an agreement to purchase the property for $175,000. Carol Martin then provided them with a written appraisal that listed the house’s value as $165,000.
When the Van Gough refused to go through with the deal, Johnny Martin brought suit to recover the difference between the agreement price and the price for which the house was later sold.
The Van Gough claimed that the contract should be rescinded on the basis of their mistaken assumption as to the value of the house.
What kind of mistake was made in this situation?
How should the court rule on this issue?
Generally, what ethical principles as expressed in public policies are in conflict here and in similar situation in which parties enter into a contract with mistaken assumptions?
2000 words
Times new roman
Duble spaesing
You've got to be kidding !
Your really expect somebody to give you a 2000 word reply, with a given font, and double spacing ?????
(notice the correct way of double spacing)
pls,I want the answer
In this situation, a unilateral mistake was made by the Van Goughs, as they had an incorrect assumption about the value of the property they were interested in purchasing. They believed that there had been several appraisals ranging from $175,000 to $192,000, but when they requested a written appraisal after signing the purchase agreement, Carol Martin provided them with an appraisal listing the house's value as $165,000. This difference in value led the Van Goughs to refuse to go through with the deal.
When it comes to unilateral mistakes in contracts, the court generally follows the rule of "caveat emptor" or "buyer beware." Under this rule, it is the responsibility of the buyer to ensure that they have all the necessary information and to bear the risk of any mistake they make. However, there are some exceptions to this rule, which we will explore in more detail.
The court should rule in favor of the Martins and deny the Van Goughs' claim to rescind the contract based on their mistaken assumption of the value of the property. This is because unilateral mistakes, especially those related to the value of a property, are not typically sufficient grounds for rescinding a contract. The Van Goughs had the opportunity to request a written appraisal before signing the agreement, but they chose not to do so. The fact that Carol Martin later provided them with an appraisal that differed from their assumptions does not excuse their failure to verify the value of the property beforehand.
Furthermore, the Van Goughs' mistaken assumption about the value of the property does not meet the requirements for a mutual mistake. A mutual mistake occurs when both parties to a contract share the same misconception about a material fact. In this case, the mistaken assumption was solely on the Van Goughs' part, as Carol Martin claims she understood the term "appraisal" to mean any opinion as to the market value of the house, whereas the Van Goughs believed it referred to the actual appraisals that had been done. Therefore, the court should consider this a unilateral mistake rather than a mutual one.
Now, let's explore the ethical principles expressed in public policies that are in conflict in this situation and similar situations involving mistaken assumptions in contracts. One important ethical principle is the principle of freedom of contract, which recognizes the autonomy and freedom of individuals to enter into contracts based on their own preferences and agreements. This principle emphasizes personal responsibility and the importance of honoring the commitments made in contracts.
Another principle at play is the principle of fairness and equity. This principle suggests that contracts should be fair and just, with both parties entering into the agreement voluntarily and without coercion. It promotes the idea that contracts should not be unduly burdensome or take advantage of vulnerable parties. However, in the case of mistaken assumptions, it can be argued that the principle of fairness and equity is in conflict with the principle of freedom of contract.
In situations where parties enter into a contract with mistaken assumptions, there is a tension between upholding the principle of freedom of contract and ensuring fairness and equity. On one hand, upholding the freedom of contract principle means that the parties have the responsibility to do their due diligence and verify any assumptions or information before entering into a contract. If a mistake is made, it is generally the responsibility of the mistaken party to bear the consequences.
On the other hand, the principle of fairness and equity recognizes that there may be situations where it would be unjust or morally unacceptable to enforce a contract due to a mistake that was made. Courts may be willing to intervene and rescind a contract based on a mistaken assumption if certain conditions are met, such as if the mistake was material, if the mistaken party was not negligent in their research or inquiry, and if enforcing the contract would result in an unfair or inequitable outcome.
In the case at hand, the Van Goughs' mistaken assumption about the value of the property does not meet these conditions. They had the opportunity to request a written appraisal before signing the agreement but failed to do so. Their failure to verify the value of the property cannot be attributed to Carol Martin, as she provided them with an appraisal after the agreement was signed. Therefore, enforcing the contract and holding the Van Goughs accountable for their mistaken assumption aligns with the principle of freedom of contract.
In conclusion, the mistake made in this situation is a unilateral mistake made by the Van Goughs regarding the value of the property. The court should rule in favor of the Martins and deny the Van Goughs' claim to rescind the contract based on their mistaken assumption. The ethical principles expressed in public policies that are in conflict here are the principle of freedom of contract and the principle of fairness and equity. While both principles are important, in this case, upholding the principle of freedom of contract and personal responsibility takes precedence.