For this reason, the court concludes that this factor is decisive. Even if the court found that the balance of harms tipped decidedly in favor of the plaintiff, he has failed to raise sufficiently meritorious issues as to the propriety of the Army’s actions. His argument boils down to the fact that he and his parents were, at best, confused at to what was going to happen to him if he was disenrolled. Mere confusion is not enough to rescind his contract. There is little evidence that this confusion was reasonable, and less still that the Army should have known of this confusion and attempted to clarify his options. Even a unilateral mistake at the time he signed the contract most likely would not have rendered it voidable. See Rodriguez v. Vuono, 757 F.Supp. 141, 149 (D.P.R.1991) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION The court concludes that on
holding that a mistake of law is not a basis to rescind a contract holding judicial reformation of contract is an appropriate remedy when the contract was the product of a mutual mistake holding enlistment contract not voidable due to unilateral mistake holding that fraudulent inducement renders a contract void or voidable holding that a contract made in violation of section 432070 is void rather than voidable