Also known as: mistakes in fact · mistake of fact · mistakes of fact
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A defense to criminal liability when an honest belief about an existing fact prevents the defendant from forming the mental state required for a material element of the offense. The defense succeeds if the mistake negates purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence even if the belief was unreasonable. Reasonableness bears only on credibility of the claimed belief.
A defense to criminal liability when an honest belief about an existing fact prevents the defendant from forming the mental state required for a material element of the offense. The defense succeeds if the mistake negates purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence even if the belief was unreasonable. Reasonableness bears only on credibility of the claimed belief.
Matthew Martinez, a subcontractor, was told by a foreman that an old warehouse contained only scrap. Believing the copper wiring had been discarded, Matthew removed it. The warehouse still belonged to Patel. Because Matthew's belief negated knowledge that the wiring belonged to another, the mistake of fact defense defeats the theft charge.
An error concerning an existing fact that affects the terms of a written agreement or donative instrument. When proved by clear and convincing evidence, the error permits reformation to match the parties' or donor's actual intention. The doctrine applies whether the mistake concerns expression of the intended terms or inducement to include or omit a term.
Melissa Mills executed a will leaving her donor-advised account at Helping Hands Fund to Elm Council. She maintained two accounts under different emails but referred to both collectively in planning discussions. The will named only one account. Clear and convincing evidence of her consistent references establishes a mistake of fact in expression, allowing reformation to include both accounts.
An error concerning an existing fact that affects the terms of a written agreement or donative instrument. When proved by clear and convincing evidence, the error permits reformation to match the parties' or donor's actual intention. The doctrine applies whether the mistake concerns expression of the intended terms or inducement to include or omit a term.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A mistake of fact is a defense when the defendant's honest belief negates the required mental state for a material element. If the defendant believed the property was abandoned or belonged to his employer, he lacked knowledge that it belonged to another. Reasonableness affects only whether the jury credits the belief.
No. An honest mistake negates the mental state even if unreasonable, unless the offense is defined in terms of negligence. Reasonableness may bear on credibility but is not an independent requirement for the defense.
Mason McCarthy created a trust directing distributions to his niece. Both he and the drafting attorney believed a statutory restriction on the chosen distribution method had been repealed. The restriction remained in force. Proof by clear and convincing evidence that the restriction affected the trust terms permits reformation to conform the instrument to Mason's actual intention.
Monica Morgan sold a cow to Michael Miller for breeding purposes. Both believed the cow was fertile. The cow was in fact barren. The mutual mistake of fact about the cow's reproductive capacity allows rescission of the sale.
Mustafa Mahmoud's company contracted with Midwest Airlines to supply aluminum under a pricing formula tied to an industrial commodities index. Both parties believed the index accurately tracked non-labor production costs. The index diverged from actual costs. The index's divergence reflects a prediction about future costs rather than a mistake of existing fact, so the mistake doctrine does not support reformation of the pricing term.
Clear and convincing evidence must show both that a mistake of fact affected specific terms and what the donor's actual intention was. Direct evidence of intention, including the donor's consistent verbal references and conduct, may be considered even when it contradicts the plain text.
Yes. Reformation is available even for unambiguous instruments when clear and convincing evidence establishes that a mistake of fact or law affected the terms and reveals the transferor's true intention.
…time the contract is made, but must have been known to one or both of the parties. Where there is no warranty, there can be no mistake of fact when no such fact exists, or, if in existence, neither party knew of it, or could know of it; and that is precisely this case. If the owner of a Hambletonian horse had speeded him, and was…