Voracek v. Crown Castle USA - Superior Court - August 22, 2006
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a13009_06.pdf
Clear and convincing evidence showed a mutual mistake when, after extensive negotiations and agreement about the inclusion of a specific contract provision, the parties' final written agreement omitted that provision.
In spite of an "unambiguous integration clause providing that the agreement superseded any and all prior agreements," the trial court properly admitted extrinsic evidence pursuant to the "doctrine of mutual mistake of fact…[which] occurs when the written instrument fails to set forth the true agreement of the parties." That extrinsic evidence showed that the parties intended to have the omitted provision as part of the agreement.
A contract may be reformed in such circumstances if "(1) the misconception entered into the contemplation of both parties as a condition of assent, and (2) the parties can be placed in their former position regarding the subject matter of the contract."
The evidence supporting the application of the doctrine "must be clear and convincing."
