Footnoted thinks that, in all cases, the expected figure was $87,500, and he suggests that as long as the executive does not try to raise $175 million from the company, the error seems to “make people laugh rather than heart failure in the meeting room.” No no. Reformation is best suited to errors in scrive or writing, such as erroneous numbers, false dates, or erroneous commas that change the meaning of a sentence. Footnoted`s report led me to take into account the impact of typographical errors – typos – in the drafting of contracts. What you have is a matter of manual for the probation rule. Normally, oral agreements are not relevant to written agreements. But because a typo “thirty (90) days” created an ambiguous term, verbal conversations are relevant, which highlights the intentions of the parties. Material error: if the two parties enter into an agreement, they are indeed wrong on an issue essential to the agreement, the agreement is at the end of the contract. First, some typos are clearly typos, because the result makes no sense. Of the 787 “material contracts” filed on EDGAR containing the word shame, only a tiny fraction was the word used intentionally. (For example, I discovered a reference to “the ad bone.” Other cases are examples of a typo that is loved by young people of all ages, shame on the public – hence the “first offer of shame,” “pubic utilities,” etc. As the nature of the typing error is so obvious, it is unthinkable that it will ever provoke a fight. Of course, the result of a typo is even more clearly the result of these collections of characters that do not even represent a word, as in blg, blgo or bloog for blog.
Whether you can decipher what the parties intend to do depends on the nature of the typing error. The party that aspires to the Reformation bears the burden of proof and it is heavy. In Illinois, it can be assumed that a written instrument reflects the true intent of the parties. Overcoming this assumption usually requires “clear and convincing evidence” – a burden greater than the usual obesity of the level of evidence.