It's pretty eye opening how comments like this gets down voted.
Is providing legal information with authoritative sources in a thread like this somehow offensive?
(I've wised up personally, never try to do that myself again lol)
Is providing legal information with authoritative sources in a thread like this somehow offensive?
(I've wised up personally, never try to do that myself again lol)
https://a16z.com/2014/02/06/why-i-did-not-go-to-jail/
More specifically to this exact discussion, see California Civil Code 3399:
> When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, or a mistake of one party, which the other at the time knew or suspected, a written contract does not truly express the intention of the parties, it may be revised on the application of a party aggrieved, so as to express that intention, so far as it can be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons, in good faith and for value.
This would allow an employer to seek reformation. It's not clear to me as a layperson if this reformation could apply retroactively or not.
Or this interpretation of the consequences of a recent case in Virginia: https://www.virginiabusinesslitigationlawyer.com/when-negoti...
The actual decision: https://www.virginiabusinesslitigationlawyer.com/wp-content/...
The facts of this case do not mirror exactly what we're talking about here, so I'm definitely not trying to give legal advice. Maybe this wouldn't apply -- reading through it, it's a bit more egregious than what we're talking about here.