How To Prove A Florida Mutual Mistake Defense

 

 

In Florida, a defense of Mutual Mistake is defined as:

Mutual Mistake is an error of both parties to a contract, whereby each operates under the identical misconception concerning a past or existing material fact.

It simply means:

When both parties to a contract have the wrong understanding of a material fact.

There are 2 elements of the defense:

• Element 1. The parties were mutually mistaken regarding a basic assumption underlying the contract. The parties involved in the contract both believed something fundamental to the agreement was true, but it turned out to be false, which means they were both mistaken about an important fact that affects the contract’s validity.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * Both parties believed the property being sold was free of any liens, but it was later discovered that a significant lien existed.
  * The seller represented that the equipment was in working condition, while the buyer assumed it was fully operational based on that representation.
  * Both parties agreed on the delivery date based on the assumption that the product was in stock, but it was actually backordered.
  * The contract specified a certain type of material, but both parties mistakenly thought it referred to a different, more expensive material.
  * The buyer and seller both assumed the zoning regulations allowed for the intended use of the property, but this assumption was incorrect.

• Element 2. The party must also show he did not bear the risk of mistake. A party bears the risk of a mistake when (a) the risk is allocated to him by agreement of the parties or (b) he is aware, at the time the contract is made, that he has only limited knowledge with respect to the facts to which the mistake relates but treats his limited knowledge as sufficient, or (c) the risk is allocated to him by the court on the ground that it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so. To successfully claim a mutual mistake defense, a party must prove they did not take on the risk of the mistake, meaning they either didn’t agree to bear that risk, weren’t aware of their limited knowledge, or the court finds it reasonable to assign that risk to them.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The contract explicitly stated that the seller would bear the risk of any inaccuracies in the property description, indicating an agreement that allocated the risk away from the buyer.
  * At the time of the contract, the buyer expressed concerns about the accuracy of the property’s zoning status but was assured by the seller that it was correct.
  * The buyer conducted a reasonable investigation into the property’s history but discovered conflicting information that the seller failed to disclose, demonstrating limited knowledge of the facts.
  * The buyer was not aware of any potential issues with the property’s title and relied on the seller’s representations, which were later found to be misleading.
  * The court found that the circumstances surrounding the transaction indicated that the seller had superior knowledge about the property, justifying the allocation of risk away from the buyer.

^{(See Leff v. Ecker, 972 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Rawson v. Umlic Vp, LLC, 933 So. 2d 1206, 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).)}
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Defense of Mutual Mistake, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to determine what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Navigating the complexities of Mutual Mistake requires careful preparation and strategic thinking to effectively present your defense.

Prove Your FL Mutual Mistake Defense

U.S. Civil Cases Only