Final answer:
In a dispute over a clerical error in a lease contract, Kaylee can seek reformation of the contract in court to reflect the correct lease amount. Evidence such as prior communications and consistent payments can support the true intent of the agreement. Contracts should be clear and understandable to avoid such confusion.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the legal dispute involving Bryan and Kaylee over the lease amount for a snow cone stand, there are several legal principles and considerations that may be applicable. First, if Kaylee seeks to introduce evidence to show that the written contract contains an error, the principle of Parol Evidence Rule may initially prevent her from presenting evidence that contradicts or adds to the written contract. However, since this is a case of a clear clerical error where the written agreement differs from the agreed-upon terms, Kaylee may invoke the legal doctrine called reformation. Reformation allows a court to amend the contract to reflect the true agreement of the parties if clear evidence of the mistake is presented.
Moreover, demonstrating the intent of both parties at the time of the contract's formation is critical. If both parties can acknowledge that the figure of $5,000 was a typo, and it was understood that $500 was the actual lease amount, then Kaylee could potentially use this fact to persuade the court to reform the contract. It might also be relevant if Kaylee can show evidence such as prior lease payments, correspondence, or other documents that could establish the $500 as the intended monthly lease amount.
Additionally, it's essential for legal contracts to be clear and understandable to avoid confusion and potential disputes. In light of the Plain Writing Act of 2010, the contract in question should be written in a manner that is accessible and easy for an average person to understand without requiring legal assistance.