16.420 Contracts; Misrepresentation; Fraud

16.420 Contracts; Misrepresentation; Fraud A written contract will not be reformed in the absence of fiduciary or confidential relations between the parties because of mistakes as to the contents of the writing on the part of the complaining party who was able to read and fraud of the other party consisting of false representation as to the contents of the writing on which the complaining party relied as true because of confidence in the party making them. If a party, by reasonable care, could have discovered the truth, relief will not be granted, nor shall ignorance of a fact known to the opposite party justify relief if there has been no misplaced confidence, misrepresentation, or other fraudulent act. When a contract has been made but, because of a mistake on the part of one of the parties and accompanied by fraud on the part of the other, the instrument as executed does not express the true intent, you may reform the instrument and make it conform to the intent of the parties. But the complaining party must act within a reasonable time. The evidence to justify the reformation must be clear and convincing. (See 02.040 Clear and Convincing Evidence. Clarke v. Cotton, 263 Ga. 861 (1994).) O.C.G.A. §23-2-29 Weaver v. Roberson, 134 Ga. 149(1) (1910) Sheldon v. Hargrose, 213 Ga. 672, 175 (1957) Quiggle v. Vining, 125 Ga. 98 (1906) Davis v. United American, etc., 215 Ga. 521, 525 (1959)