in cases arising under the common law of contracts. For example, in Koam Produce, Inc. v. DiMare Homestead, Inc., 329 F.3d 123, 127 (2d Cir.2003), the court reviewed the Secretary’s reparation award to a party who was overcharged as a result of falsified inspection certificates that the other party had obtained by bribery. The court affirmed the award on the basis of the doctrine of mistake, holding that the seller’s reliance on the integrity of USDA inspections constituted a mistake of fact that adversely affected it. It noted that the mistake resulted from the informational advantage the buyer enjoyed over the seller, and that the buyer was at fault for not informing the seller of that information. Id. at 128; cf. Produce Place v. Dep’t of Agric., 91 F.3d 173, 177 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). These cases are consistent with the
holding that breach occurred when seller told buyer that seller would do no more to rectify alleged warranty violation holding that seller carried insurance for benefit of buyer and held proceeds in trust for buyer when seller agreed to maintain insurance until possession date but bam burned before buyer took possession holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision holding that the false or misleading statement clause in  499b4 was violated when the buyer knowingly misrepresented the condition of the produce to the seller holding an arbitration clause contained in confirmations sent to buyer by seller was part of parties course of dealing and therefore part of the contract after buyer had repeated opportunities to object to the clause and had failed to do so