Quote:
Originally Posted by Smarti5051
I see where you are coming from, but the statement was not ACTUALLY true at the time it was made, it was just not known to be false by any of the parties at the time it was made. The parties believed it would be the last touchdown at the time the contract was formed, but we now know all parties were unaware that the entire foundation for their agreement was based on a faulty premise. And, depending on the timing of Tom Brady's agreement to return, it is entirely possible that Tom Brady was not even legally retired at the closing of the auction, so even that material fact might have been false.
I think frustration of purpose could also work, but I think the easier path for the buyer's lawyer is to just use Leland's affirmative statements against it to void the contract.
|
That’s a good point On the timing.Indeed, I think your reasoning would also support mutual mistake. So will make all the arguments and prevail lol.