‘[wjhere a mistake of both parties at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption on which the contract was made has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances, the contract is voidable by the adversely affected party[.]’ ” Ibid. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 152(1) (1981)). At its core, the doctrine of mutual mistake requires that “the parties must share this erroneous assumption.” Ibid. (emphasis supplied). Because the presence of a mutual mistake means that there has been no meeting of the minds sufficient to warrant that the parties be bound thereby, neither plaintiff nor defendants should be bound by that to which no properly informed party could have agreed. See Parrette v. Citizens’ Cas. Co., 128 N.J. Eq. 206, 209, 15 A.2d 802 (E. & A.1940) (<HOLDING>). E. No matter how gauged, the actions of the
holding mutual assent in contract law is elementary and it must be expressed by the parties holding that reformation is an extreme equitable remedy available only when a party shows either mutual mistake or fraud by clear and convincing evidence and that findings as to reformation based upon a preponderance of the evidence standard are clearly erroneous holding the parol evidence rule not pertinent to the present issue because a contract may be clear and unambiguous as far as it goes and yet may not express the true agreement of the parties by reason of mutual mistake holding judicial reformation of contract is an appropriate remedy when the contract was the product of a mutual mistake holding that mutual mistake is ground for reformation when as here the minds of the parties have met contractually but because of a mutual mistake the written contract between the parties is wanting in expression or execution to evince the actual and binding contractual intent of the parties