Opinion ID: 2976706
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Garb-Ko v. Lansing-Lewis Services

Text: The second case cited by Goulson in connection with his mutual mistake theory is Garb-Ko, Inc. v. Lansing-Lewis Servs., Inc., 167 Mich. App. 779 (1988). While Goulson cites the case for its discussion of mutual mistake, Garb-Ko, too, does not help him. In Garb-Ko, the court followed the teaching of Messerly. Finding a mutual mistake relating to a basic assumption of the parties, the court allowed the seller to rescind the contract for sale of land. The court noted that the parties’ agreement had allocated the risk of loss to the purchaser. Because the seller, not the purchaser, was the party adversely affected by the parties’ mistake, the purchaser’s assumption of the risk of loss was held not to preclude rescission by the seller and the contract was deemed voidable by the seller. Here, in contrast, Goulson is both the party adversely affected by the asserted mistake and the party - 12 - No. 07-2232 Goulson v. Yum! Brands, Inc., et al. who assumed the risk of loss by releasing Yorkshire from liability for any potential claim. Under these circumstances, per Garb-Ko, Goulson cannot repudiate the agreement even if he were adversely affected by a significant mutual mistake, because he expressly and indisputably bore the risk of the mistake. 167 Mich. App. at 785 (“when a legally significant mutual mistake has occurred, the contract is voidable by the adversely affected party unless he bears the risk of the mistake”) (emphasis added). Goulson attempts to distinguish Garb-Ko by again insisting that he does not want to rescind the parties’ agreement, but enforce it. In other words, Goulson’s mutual mistake theory is founded on his steadfast refusal to acknowledge that the release exists as an integral part of the very agreement he purports to enforce. Unless and until he carries his burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the release (rather than its imagined nonexistence), he is barred from enforcing any other part of the Option Exercise Notice agreement. Goulson’s mutual mistake theory, finding practically no substantive support in the very cases he relies on, fails to carry this burden for him.