We had this happen only once several years ago. We were paid in full. The issue is whether the name of the other abstractor on the order should have tipped you off. In our case we were told the same thing that you were told. My response was that since the order had my telephone number on it and the other abstractor's name...I assumed that he was unable to do the search and that it was being re-assigned to me.

When you receive a search order, it is essentially a unilateral contract provided you do not have an express bilateral contract to the contrary with the client. Your search effort constitutes both the consideration for the contract as well as performance of your contractual obligations. Mistake may result in a cancellation under two circumstances...a mutual mistake on both sides of the contract in which case the parties can agree to void the contract...or a unilateral mistake on one side coupled with fraud on the other side in which case the party who made the mistake is discharged from its contractual obligations because of the fraud on the other side of the contract.

In your case there was no fraud involved. The mistake was not a mutual mistake but rather the client's mistake. I would insist on payment in full. The client does not sound like it provides you with enough business to worry about it if they cancel you as a result.

to post a reply: login - or - register