Inc. for the proposition that “equity can correct a unilateral mistake where said mistake is committed by an employee of the appellant, and constitutes a simple but honest mistake which could lead to an unconscionable result.” 324 So.2d 721, 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The use of the word “unconscionable” in the Florida Cranes decision is not in reference to the independent unconscionability defense explained above, however, but is merely a portion of the unilateral mistake analysis. Indeed, the word “unconscionable” is also used in the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Krasnek, but only to explain that a trial court cannot grant relief based on a unilateral mistake if the party seeking to enforce the contract has changed its position in reliance on the contract. 174 So.2d at 543 (<HOLDING>). To the extent that Starboard relies on
holding that elearly if the legislature had intended to deny or delay arbitration by permitting an appeal from an order compelling arbitration it would have said so but also holding that even so the trial courts order must also be examined in light of rule 2a of the arkansas rules of appellate procedure which governs the appealability of lower court orders emphasis added recognizing that an order denying a motion to modify a family court order where the motion is based on changed factual or legal circumstances is appealable as a special order after final judgment holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1 holding adjudication order based upon a determination on the merits in juvenile court is a final and appealable order holding that a trial court cannot order rescission based on unilateral mistake unless the respondents position had not been so changed in reliance on the contract that it would be unconscionable to order rescission emphasis added