FL · jury_instructions
Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Contract & Bus.) 416.25
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE — MUTUAL MISTAKE OF FACT
(Defendant) claims that [he] [she] [it] should be able to set aside the contract because the parties were mistaken about (insert description of mistake). To establish this defense, (defendant) must prove the following by clear and convincing evidence:
1. The parties were mistaken about (insert description of mistake) at the time the parties made the contract;
2. The fact about which (the parties) were mistaken was material to the contract; and
The fact about which the parties were mistaken is material if it is of such importance the parties would not have entered into the contract had they known the true facts.
3. (Defendant) did not bear the risk of mistake. A party bears the risk of a mistake when
[the parties’ agreement assigned the risk to [him] [her] [it]]*
[or]
[[he] [she] [it] was aware, at the time the contract was made, that [he] [she] [it] had only limited knowledge about the facts relating to the mistake but decided to proceed with the contract].**
* The court should give the first option only if the court finds that the contract is ambiguous regarding whether the contract assigns the risk to the defendant.
**The court should give the second option only if there is a jury question regarding whether, at the time the contract was made, the defendant had only limited knowledge with respect to the facts relating to the mistake but treated the limited knowledge as sufficient.
Provenance
- Source
- floridabar.org
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-18
- Edition
- 2026-08-18
- Content hash
4eb4aaff21e2c095f954d751e2e5366f96027f8d4f20a5b7a23cf094976beaee
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.