A is corrent. A mutual mistake occurs when two parties intentionally enter into an agreement, but under an erroneous conviction. In this case, at the time of entering the contract, both parties reasonably believed that the destroyed painting was still in existence. Thus Maple’s best defense is that there was a mutual mistake of an existing fact, which renders the contract voidable.
B is incorrect. The law is not concerned with the adequacy of the consideration, but rather the sufficiency of the consideration. Ard’s promise to pay for the painting acts as sufficient consideration since it represents a new legal detriment to which he was not previously bound. Therefore, lack of adequate consideration would not be Maple’s best defense.
C is incorrect. It would be impossible for risk of loss to pass to Ard since the painting was destroyed on May 4 before the contract was ever formed.
D is incorrect. Unconscionability arises when there is a great disparity in the bargaining powers of the contracting parties, through which one party exploits the other. There is no evidence here that Ard was in a superior bargaining position as to Maple, and therefore unconscionability is not present.
|
