Opinion ID: 2165625
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Petition to Annul

Text: The Commissioner's finding that the carrier understood that the Agreement was the only form of Agreement that the Commission would accept is final, if supported by some competent evidence. Bernier v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc. et al., Me., 250 A.2d 820, [1] 821. There was competent evidence to support the finding. With what effect? Section 102 of the Act (39 M.R.S.A.) provides that: Upon the petition of either party at any time the commission may annul any agreement which has been approved by the Commissioner of Labor and Industry provided it finds that such agreement was entered into through mistake of fact by said petitioner or through fraud.   . The petitioner as used above is the petitioner for annulment, not the petitioner for compensation. The Commission is a creature of the statute and possesses only such jurisdiction, powers, and authority as are conferred upon it by express legislative grant, or such as arise therefrom by implication as necessary and incidental to the full and complete exercise of the powers granted. Conners' Case, 121 Me. 37, 40, 115 A. 520, 521. We find no authority in the Commission to annul an agreement which has been filed by one party on the ground that it has allegedly been abandoned or forgotten by both parties. No fraud has been attributed to such resurrection of the Agreement, by pleading or the Commissioner's decree. The appeal must be premised upon the fact that Carrier mistakenly understood that the Agreement which was retrieved by Attorney Y from his files and put through channels to the Commissioner of Labor and the Commission was the only form of Agreement that the Commission would accept. A mistake on one side may be a ground for rescinding a contract,    but it cannot be a ground for altering its terms. Hudson Structural Steel Company v. Smith & Rumery Co. et al., 110 Me. 123, 127, 85 A. 384, 386, 43 L.R.A., N.S., 654. But (a) mistake, to entitle a party to relief on account thereof, must be material to the transaction, and affecting its substance, and not merely its incidents. Stewart v. Ticonic National Bank, 104 Me. 578, 586, 72 A. 741. (A) mistake of fact takes place either when some fact which really exists is unknown, or some nonexistent fact is supposed to exist. Crawford's Case, 127 Me. 374, 376, 143 A. 464. The only material facts which have ever been in dispute are a) whether the death of Mr. Kennie was accidental or occupational, and b) what benefits ensued. The petition to annul implies broadly that Mr. H prepared the Agreement dated August 8, 1967 supposing that the Commission would accept, on the merits, no other agreement. There is nothing to show that such alleged Commission-originated fact existed. A mistake cannot be founded upon an unknown non-existent fact. Treating the alleged Commission-originated requirement as a non-existent fact which Mr. H supposed to exist, Mr. H and Attorneys A and B, all acting for the Carrier, are forced to contend that Carrier mistakenly supposed that the Commission could premise its acceptance of a settlement agreement upon a requirement that the parties stipulate that an accidental death be considered occupational, or vice versa, or that compensation be awarded in amounts contrary to the Act. Such contention is self defeating. Additionally Attorney A subsequently and directly ratified the Agreement and Attorney B subsequently indirectly ratified it. If the allegation in the petition to annul is read literally, whereby the existing, but unknown fact, or the non-existent fact which was supposed to exist, relates only to the form of the agreement, it is not a matter of substance, but merely incidental.