Speckel Ex Rel. Speckel v. Perkins

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a district court order compelling performance of a settlement agreement determines the result of the case and is therefore appealable pursuant to rule 103.03(e)
• holding that a “unilateral mistake in entering a contract is not a basis for rescission unless there is ambiguity, fraud, misrepresentation, or where the contract may be rescinded without prejudice to the other party”
• finding that where the offeror’s letter contained palpable inconsistencies, the facts raised a “presumption of error” that imposed a duty to inquire on the offeree
• “A unilateral mistake in entering a contract is not a basis for recission 6 unless there is ambiguity, fraud, misrepresentation, or where the contract may be rescinded without prejudice to the other party.”
• “A duty to inquire may be imposed on the person receiving the offer when there are factors that reasonably raise a presumption of error. An offeree will not be permitted to snap up an offer that is too good to be true . . . .”
• “The subjective intent of [the parties] is irrelevant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).