Opinion ID: 1228967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendant's Representation and Plaintiffs' Reliance

Text: The gist of the trial court's theory of mutual mistake was that it was not Adams who represented the farm land as comprising 1,238 acres, plus an absence of evidence that Sorenson and Thompson relied on any such representation. The mutual mistake, according to the trial court's bench remarks, consisted simply in the fact that both parties relied on the erroneous figures on the A.S.C. document: There is not one word in this record that Mr. Adams orally told them at any time they could rely on 1,238 acres... . That representation was made to both Mr. Adams, or, made to Mr. Adams by the A.S.C. Office, by the government, not by Mr. Adams. There is not a word in this record that he intentionally attempted to indicate to them that there was  this was fact. ... the evidence of everybody that testified said they relied upon the instrument they saw that said 1,238 acres. They didn't rely on a thing Mr. Adams told them. That's the evidence in this case. They didn't rely on any statement that Mr. Adams made. Again, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise, keeping in mind that the trial court stated his belief in the credibility of all the witnesses. Appellants point to Sorenson's testimony that, ... as we were looking at this notice, I asked him [Adams] if that was the correct number of acres, and he said, yes, that's about right. He said there's about 700 acres on the north side of the road and about 500 acres on the south side of the road. As to whether or not the plaintiffs relied entirely on the A.S.C. paper, and not anything Adams said, appellants note that the testimony of Sorenson was again to the contrary: A On the stencil of the name up here. There is also an item under the farm land, an item under crop land, and the figure 1,238 appears on the crop land. Q You recall seeing that figure that day as you were talking to Mr. Adams? A Yes, sir. Q That is the figure you were referring to in your conversation when you asked him? A That is the figure I asked him. I asked him, Now is that the right number of acres? And he assured me that it was about right. Q Now state whether or not in purchasing this farm you relied upon this figure of 1,238 acres? A Certainly. (Emphasis added.) There is much, then, to sustain appellants' argument that the uncontradicted evidence most strongly indicates that Rex Adams knew he owned less than 1,100 acres of farm land; that on several occasions he represented to the prospective buyers that he owned 1,238 acres of farm land; and that the buyers relied on this representation.