How To Prove A Florida Unilateral Mistake of Fact Defense
In Florida, a defense of Unilateral Mistake of Fact is defined as:
A Unilateral Mistake of fact occurs when one party is mistaken about a material fact in a contract.
It simply means:
When one party to a contract has the wrong understanding of a material fact.
There are 5 elements of the defense:
- Element 1. There was a contract between the parties. A unilateral mistake of fact defense applies when one party in a contract misunderstands a key fact, but there was still a valid agreement between both parties, meaning they had a mutual understanding of the contract’s terms, even if one party was mistaken about an important detail.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The parties engaged in negotiations and exchanged written communications outlining the terms of the agreement.
* Both parties performed actions consistent with the existence of a contract, such as making payments and delivering goods.
* The defendant acknowledged the terms of the agreement in a signed document, indicating mutual assent.
* The plaintiff provided consideration in the form of services rendered, demonstrating the intent to create a binding contract.
* The parties had a history of prior agreements, establishing a pattern of contractual relationships. - Element 2. The mistake was induced by the party seeking to benefit from the mistake. This means that one party made a mistake about a fact in a contract because the other party tricked or misled them, and the party who benefited from the mistake cannot take advantage of it because they caused the confusion.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The party seeking to benefit from the mistake provided misleading information about the terms of the contract.
* The party intentionally omitted critical details that would have clarified the true nature of the agreement.
* The party engaged in deceptive practices that led to the misunderstanding of the contract’s obligations.
* The party had prior knowledge of the mistake but failed to disclose it, allowing the error to persist.
* The party’s actions created a false impression that influenced the other party’s decision-making process. - Element 3. There is no negligence or want of due care on the part of the party seeking a return to the status quo. This means that the person asking to go back to the original situation did not make any careless mistakes or fail to take proper care in their actions leading up to the issue.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The party seeking a return to the status quo conducted thorough research and due diligence before entering into the agreement.
* The party promptly communicated any discrepancies or misunderstandings regarding the contract terms as soon as they were discovered.
* The party maintained clear and consistent documentation of all communications related to the agreement, demonstrating transparency and good faith.
* The party sought legal advice prior to finalizing the agreement, ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
* The party acted in accordance with industry standards and practices throughout the negotiation and execution of the contract. - Element 4. A denial of release from the agreement would be inequitable. If someone realizes they made a mistake about an important fact in a contract, it would be unfair to force them to stick to the agreement, especially if the other party knew about the mistake or could have easily found out about it.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The party seeking release from the agreement relied on a significant misrepresentation that directly influenced their decision to enter into the contract.
* The other party was aware of the mistake but chose not to disclose it, leading to an unfair advantage.
* The terms of the agreement are excessively burdensome and disproportionate to the benefits received by the party seeking enforcement.
* The party seeking release has acted in good faith and has made efforts to rectify the situation since discovering the mistake.
* Enforcing the agreement would result in substantial hardship that was not anticipated by the party seeking release. - Element 5. The position of the opposing party has not so changed that granting the relief would be unjust. The opposing party’s situation hasn’t changed enough to make it unfair to grant the requested relief, meaning that even if one side made a mistake about a fact, the other side is still in a position where it would be reasonable to help correct that mistake.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The opposing party has consistently maintained the same position regarding the terms of the agreement since its inception.
* The opposing party has not incurred any significant expenses or changes in circumstances that would be adversely affected by granting the relief sought.
* The opposing party was aware of the potential for misunderstanding but chose not to clarify the terms before the agreement was finalized.
* The opposing party has not taken any actions that would suggest reliance on the mistaken belief held by the other party.
* The opposing party has previously acknowledged the possibility of a mistake in the agreement during negotiations.
(See Deprince v. Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc., 163 So. 3d 586, 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Defense of Unilateral Mistake of Fact, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to effectively navigate your legal journey.
Prove Your FL Unilateral Mistake of Fact Defense
U.S. Civil Cases Only