Typographical Error Doesn't Invalidate Contract, Says Appeals Court

In the context of a recent breach of contract case pertaining to a noncompete clause in California, a physician who was seeking to withdraw from a medical practice and recoup his investment claimed that inasmuch as the agreement contained a clear error, it was inherently unenforceable on account of its ambiguity.

Not surprisingly, this argument fell flat.

And the reason it failed should be fairly obvious: the primary purpose of a contract is to make sure that both parties to an agreement have a "meeting of the minds," and that the parties' joint intent is clarified.

Thus, in rejecting the plaintiff’s appeal, the Superior Court "determined that the contract contained a typographical error, and that the parties’ intent was clear.”