Question

Valerie promised to buy Nicole's car for $2,000. Nicole drew up the contract providing that the exchange would occur the next week. Unfortunately, Nicole was not very good with the keyboard and typed in $1,200 as the price of the car. Valerie noticed that the contract said $1,200, not $2,000, and was very pleased. She signed it without saying anything. When it was time to make the exchange, Valerie gave Nicole $1,200. In response to Nicole's inquiry regarding the additional $800, Valerie pulled out the contract and showed her that it said $1,200. Nicole immediately responded that she had made a typographical error. Valerie said that there was no mistake on her part because she knew exactly what she was doing and that she thought that Nicole had decided to give her a deal on the car. Which of the following is Nicole's best argument for a rescission of the contract?A. That the mistake resulted from an accidental clerical error and that it would be unconscionable to enforce the contract.

B. That duress was involved because of Valerie's wrongful behavior.
C. That because a bilateral contract, as well as a unilateral mistake, was involved, most courts would grant relief.
D. That the mistake resulted from a sale of goods, as opposed to the provision of services, and that courts are more likely to grant relief for a mistake when actual physical work is not involved.
E. That a unilateral mistake was involved and that courts typically allow relief in situations involving unilateral mistakes as opposed to mutual mistakes.

Answer 1

That the mistake resulted from an accidental clerical error and that it would be unconscionable to enforce the contract.

Step-by-step explanation:

Nicole mistake is a clerical error.

An error is said to be clerical if it's a mistake that changes the meaning of a document after.

Typographical error and unintentional addition or removal of a word, phrase, or figure in the document can count as clerical error.

Mistakes like this should be readily rectified without objection by the court acting sua sponte, on its own, or on the motion of either party.