Fountain Valley Transit Mix, Inc. - Page 16

                                        -  -16                                           
          convincing evidence, and a preponderance of evidence is                     
          insufficient.  Moore v. Vandermast, Inc., 119 P.2d 129, 130 (Cal.           
          1941); Martinelli v. Gabriel, 230 P.2d 444, 447 (Cal. Dist. Ct.             
          App. 1951); Taff v. Atlas Assurance Co., 137 P.2d 483, 485 (Cal.            
          Dist. Ct. App. 1943).                                                       
               In this case, unlike the situation in numerous California              
          cases dealing with the issue of mistake, the parties seeking                
          relief from mistake are related companies.  Therefore, in this              
          case, it is more difficult to determine the true intent of the              
          parties at the time of contracting.  However, there is no                   
          evidence in this case, as is later more fully pointed out, of the           
          circumstances surrounding the execution of the lease.                       
               The only testimony here concerning a mistake in the lease is           
          the testimony of Kurt Caillier that he had always understood that           
          petitioner was to pay for the tires and not the lessor.  Kurt               
          Caillier testified that he did not read the contract carefully              
          when he signed it on behalf of the lessor since the contract was            
          between two of his related companies.  He did not explain who               
          drafted the lease or who told the drafter what provisions to                
          include.                                                                    
               Based on the evidence, we hold that petitioner has not met             
          its burden of proving that the tire replacement clause was                  
          entered into by mistake.  The testimony of Kurt Caillier is the             
          only evidence as to the lease in the record.  His testimony is              
          unsupported by the terms of the lease and by identical language             




Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011