CA · jury_instructions
CACI No. 330
Affirmative Defense—Unilateral Mistake of Fact
[Name of defendant] claims that there was no contract because [he/she/
nonbinary pronoun/it] was mistaken about [insert description of mistake].
To succeed, [name of defendant] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of defendant] was mistaken about [insert description of
mistake];
2. That [name of plaintiff] knew [name of defendant] was mistaken
and used that mistake to take advantage of [him/her/ nonbinary
pronoun/it];
3. That [name of defendant]’s mistake was not caused by [his/her/
nonbinary pronoun /its] excessive carelessness; and
4. That [name of defendant] would not have agreed to enter into the
contract if [he/she/ nonbinary pronoun /it] had known about the
mistake.
If you decide that [name of defendant] has proved all of the above, then
no contract was created.
New September 2003; Revised April 2004
Provenance
- Source
- courts.ca.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- caci-2025
- Content hash
bb495c319d294734bb3219d1a7b20186a057d3ca395735f45ec48bbf0873f8b3
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.