Legal concept of mistake in the consent to a contract

** There are two different responses below. Read the first one and write a 100 word response and read the second one and write a 100 word response.

Discussion 1:

The legal concept of mistake in the consent to a contract is fact vs. material. If a mistake of value exists, it does not qualify to void. Mistakes of fact qualify a contract to be voided. A unilateral mistake is a one-party mistake to a material fact that relates to the contract and is enforceable against the one party. When one party attempts to sale an item and inadvertently list the price wrong, and the other party accepts the price. Because this is written as the quote, as well as, agreed upon the selling party cannot renege on what’s stated. But there are always loopholes that allow leave way for changes, and one being that the other party knows that this is possibly a key error or also an understanding that it was not intentional makes this voidable.
A bilateral mistake involves more than one party that has a mutual understanding of the basic assumption derived from the contract. This is categorized as a material fact mistake which means that it can be canceled by either of the parties involved. Reasons for the void could resort from the material in the contract being interpreted differently by the parties. Proof of how this is factual is necessary between the parties before the contract can be voided.
Christians have the ten commandments to follow and can be viewed as a contract of salvation. The human flesh, at times, is often tempted to do otherwise. Then, afterward, there is a desire to repent or pray to God for the forgiveness of their sins. Even though the material facts are there in the commandments to follow and because it is of material facts it is changeable through God’s mercy, love and grace for his children. Luke 5:32 (New International Version) “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Reference
Miller, R.L., & Jentz, G.A. (2016). Fundamentals of Business Law today: Summarized Cases (10th Ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson-West Publishing. ISBN: 9781305075443

Discussion 2:

The Statute of Frauds stipulates that certain contracts be in writing and should also include their signature. There are five types of contracts that are required to be in writing and signed: (1) Contracts involving interest in land (2) Contracts that cannot by their terms be performed within one year from the day after the date of formation. (3) Collateral contracts, such as promises to answer for the debt or duty of another. (4) Promises made in consideration of marriage. (5) Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), contracts for the sale of goods priced at $500 or more.
In our text, (Miller, 2016), the first contract involves interest in land; the signed contract is a promise to uphold interest, easement between properties, mortgages and lease agreements. Without the signed enforceable contract, the party can renege on the agreement, and even if they are taken to court to recover money not paid it is not going to stand in court without the signed contract. Second, contracts that began after one year can be tricky; people say they said one thing, while the disputes with other terms that they presume were made. Miskelly’s the furniture store, does it all the time? To avoid disputes of when the customer incentives end, and what was agreed upon in the year prior, each party can refer to the signed contract that provides the necessary information. The third type of contract is collateral, and a third party is involved. If the contract is primary, it does not require a contract, but if it is secondary, it does. An example of a collateral contract is like a co-signer or guarantor promises to pay if the obligee does not pay. The fourth contract is marriage, and you must have a license before you can get married, and you must end the marriage with a divorce decree. The fifth contract is the UCC that requires a written or electronic contract of evidence of $500 or more. The only proof of the intent between the parties is necessary for the agreement to withstand (pp 206-208).