Cable states that he would not have agreed to the sublease provision in the settlement agreement if he had known the truth about the Equitable lease. DICA argues that the settlement agreement was induced by a misrepresentation concerning the length of the Equitable lease. On these grounds DICA seeks rescission or reformation of the agreement. The rule, however, does not apply where a contract has been formed as a result of misrepresentation or mutual mistake. This argument fails to consider the full circumstances of the settlement transaction.
Materiality is a mixed question of law and fact.
It is a fact which could reasonably be expected to influence someone's judgment or conduct concerning a transaction. Cable, the other DICA partner,6 might well have resented any profit Pister was making at his expense. 1 Pister denies making any representations about the length of the Equitable leases. However, because we must view the facts in the light most favorable to DICA, the non-moving party, we assume that the disputed representations were made. Although Lewis denies making such representations, we are required to accept DICA's version of the facts, see supra note 1, and therefore assume Lewis told Gidcumb that the Equitable lease expired in 1989.