Opinion ID: 779103
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Reformation Claim

Text: 26 Harrison-Bode challenges the district court's rejection of her cross-motion to reform the contract based on mutual mistake. In the proper circumstances, mutual mistake or fraud may furnish the basis for reforming a written agreement. Chimart Assocs. v. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570, 573, 498 N.Y.S.2d 344, 489 N.E.2d 231 (1986); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 155 (1981) (Where a writing that evidences or embodies an agreement in whole or in part fails to express the agreement because of a mistake of both parties as to the contents or effect of the writing, the court may at the request of a party reform the writing to express the agreement ....). 27 Because the remedy of reformation presents the danger that a party, having agreed to a written contract that turns out to be disadvantageous, will falsely claim the existence of a different, oral contract, Chimart, 66 N.Y.2d at 573, 498 N.Y.S.2d 344, 489 N.E.2d 231, the New York courts have sharply limited the remedy of reformation both procedurally and substantively. Id. at 574, 498 N.Y.S.2d 344, 489 N.E.2d 231. The proponent of reformation must `show in no uncertain terms, not only that mistake or fraud exists, but exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties.' Id. (quoting George Backer Mgmt. Corp. v. Acme Quilting Co., 46 N.Y.2d 211, 219, 413 N.Y.S.2d 135, 385 N.E.2d 1062 (1978)); see also Healy v. Rich Prods. Corp., 981 F.2d 68, 73 (2d Cir.1992) (To reform a contract, mutual mistake must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Unilateral mistake alone will not justify reformation of an instrument. (applying New York law)) (citations omitted). 28 The extrinsic evidence submitted by Harrison-Bode does not meet New York's stringent standard for reformation because it does not show in no uncertain terms... exactly what was really agreed upon between the parties. Chimart, 66 N.Y.2d at 574, 498 N.Y.S.2d 344, 489 N.E.2d 231 (quoting George Backer Mgmt., 46 N.Y.2d at 219, 413 N.Y.S.2d 135, 385 N.E.2d 1062). To order reformation, we would have to conclude that the meaning of the term Monet, as included in the final agreement, was intended by all parties to refer only to MGI. This conclusion is not warranted on the present record. The district court's denial of plaintiff's cross-motion for reformation is therefore affirmed.