on the house which was accepted in writing by Larson the next day. On the day prior to
closing, Bill went to make a final inspection. Bill observed water leaking through
another crack in a ceiling of the house and in the garage. The next day, Bill informed
the real estate agent that he was rescinding the contract because of the leaks. Larson
subsequently rented the property to another party. A couple of months later, Larson filed
a suit seeking a court order to make Bill purchase the house or in the alternative for
money damages. Bill defended by claiming that Larson either defrauded him or there
was a mutual mistake and asked for the return of his earnest money and/or damages for
fraud. The trial court found there was no evidence to find fraud on the part of Larson
because the roof had been previously fixed and the two parties had been good friends.
What is the appropriate remedy when a court concludes that there has been a mutual
mistake of material fact?
Shelby hired Evan to drill a well on her property for $3,000. They both thought the soil
and subsoil were normal for the area, but after he started drilling, Evan found a layer of
rock that required him to purchase a special drill and required an extra ten hours of
work. Evan demanded an extra $1,000 to complete the job. Discuss whether Shelby is
liable for the additional $1,000.