- -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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011