home for possible purchase or rental. Bill noticed a crack in the ceiling and inquired
about it to Larson. Larson said that there had been a water leakage problem in the area
but it had been fixed two years ago and had not leaked since. Bill made a written offer
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?
Cherise contacted her insurance agent and said she was interested in purchasing several
life insurance policies: (a) a policy on her own life for $100,000, naming her son and
daughter as beneficiaries; (b) a policy on her neighbors life for $100,000, since she had
observed him engaging in reckless behavior, naming herself as beneficiary; (c) a $5,000
policy on another neighbor to cover a loan Cherise made to him, naming herself as
beneficiary; and (d) a $250,000 policy on her business partner, naming herself as
beneficiary. Discuss the legality of each of these potential contracts.