Note that it is important to determine whether the non-crazy party knows that the other party does not include a term in the contract. If the non-false party knows or must know that the other party has made a unilateral error, the result is usually the termination of the contract (cancellation). On the other hand, if the other party was not aware of the error, the contract can be reformed (rewritten). There are a number of differences between frequent errors and other forms of error. By allowing this defence of errors, misunderstandings and misrepresentations, contract law is intended to protect the parties from agreements that have never linked them. These are consistent with the general objectives of contract law, which are to protect the reasonable expectations of sensible people. The right of error in a particular contract is governed by the law that governs the contract. The right from one country to another can vary considerably. Thus, since Great Peace Shipping /Tsavliris (International) Ltd (2002), contracts concluded under such an error are not cancelled under English law. The three types of errors recognized by law are: Normally, unilateral error does not make contract promises.
 Traditionally, this reserve is emptor (let the buyer be careful), and according to the common law reserve venditor (let the seller monitor). Unilateral errors occur when a single party commits the error. The elements necessary for unilateral errors are the same as reciprocal errors, and one of the following must exist: there was a latent ambiguity in the treaty – the parties were actually referring to different ships. They were in the opposite country and they did not agree at all. Palpable Unilateral Mistake: A one-sided error in which the non-false party knew or should have known about the other party`s error. This can easily be confused with cases of mutual consent such as Raffles v Wichelhaus.  Please note that if reciprocal errors during acceptance cancel a contract, an error in the evaluation or forecast is not. For example, (3) The mistake of the wrong party was the fault of the other party.  The modern requirements for frequent error were confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Great Peace Shipping/Tsavliris (International) Ltd (2002).
They are: Hynix provided another criterion, and that is “materiality,” referring to the overall evolution of this requirement in Degussa Canada Ltd. v. United States, 87 F.3d 1301, 1304 (Fed). Cir. 1996), and Xerox Corp. v. United States, 2004 C.I.T. (September 8, 2004) (“[A] error in the fact … is a factual error which, if the correct situation had been known, would have led to a different classification. The error must be “essential” to be corrected without consequences. Another collapse in contract law divides errors into four traditional categories: unilateral errors, reciprocal errors, erroneous transcription and misunderstandings.  If only one party is wrong, the error is a “unilateral error of law.” A unilateral error of law can only be revoked if the other party is aware of the law, but is not right and misleads or resorts to the error of law of the resigning party.
See Civ. Code 1578, paragraph 2. For example, if a married couple has entered into a marital settlement agreement based on the misjudgment of the property rights law, and the husband does not resolve his misunderstanding or caused the misunderstanding by his own fault, the wife is entitled to revoke the marital settlement contract because of her unilateral error of law.