Legal Definitions - error of fact

An error of fact occurs when an individual or entity makes a decision or takes an action based on a mistaken belief about a factual circumstance, rather than a misunderstanding of a legal rule. It means that the underlying facts upon which a judgment or action was based were incorrect or misperceived.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Criminal Defense

  Imagine a person walking home at night who sees someone reaching into their pocket and pulling out what appears to be a gun, pointing it at them. Believing their life is in imminent danger, the person acts in self-defense, striking the perceived assailant. Later, it is discovered that the "gun" was actually a realistic-looking toy water pistol. In this scenario, the person acted under an error of fact regarding the nature of the threat. Their belief that the weapon was real, a factual mistake, influenced their defensive action.

• Example 2: Contract Law

  Consider a situation where two parties enter into a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Both parties genuinely believe, based on outdated survey maps, that the land includes a specific natural spring. After the contract is signed, a new survey reveals that the spring is actually located on an adjacent property and not within the boundaries of the land sold. Here, both parties operated under an error of fact concerning a material characteristic of the property being exchanged. This factual mistake could potentially impact the validity or terms of their contract.

• Example 3: Administrative Decision-Making

  A local zoning board denies a homeowner's application to build an extension on their house, citing a regulation that prohibits construction within 50 feet of a protected historical landmark. The board's decision is based on an internal report that incorrectly identifies a nearby old oak tree as a protected landmark. In reality, the oak tree is not designated as such, and the actual landmark is much further away. The zoning board's denial was an error of fact, as their decision was founded on a mistaken belief about the tree's protected status, rather than an incorrect interpretation of the zoning law itself.