to the contract held an erroneous belief as to an existing fact. Id. The availability of commercial reprocessing in the future cannot constitute an existing fact at the time of the 1973 sale contract. “A party’s prediction or judgment as to events to occur in the future, even if erroneous, is not a ‘mistake’ as that word is defined [under the doctrine of mutual mistake of fact].” Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 151 cmt. a (1981); see, e.g., United States v. Southwestern Elec. Coop., Inc., 869 F.2d 310, 315 (7th Cir.1989) (“[R]ules governing rescission for either mutual mistake or singular mistake are inapplicable where, as here, a party’s erroneous prediction or judgment as to future events is involved.”); Baker v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 788 F.2d 650, 661-62 (10th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Shear v. National Rifle Ass’n of Am., 606
holding that no claim of mutual mistake can be stated on the basis of disappointed expectations as to a future event which amount to mere conjecture not an existing fact holding that a valid contract requires a meeting of minds that gave rise to an obligation situation or state of law resulting from an agreement and that created certain expectations on the basis of which the parties acted holding that speculation about occurrence of future event ordinarily does not render all parties potentially affected by that future event necessary or indispensable parties holding that the plras limit on the amount of attorneys fees that can be awarded to inmates counsel satisfied the rational basis test holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability