Replying to self since I can't edit. I may have been a bit too confident about whether the text would have been enforced. It actually is possible (in the Unit

Replying to self since I can't edit. I may have been a bit too confident about whether the text would have been enforced. It actually is possible (in the United States) for a court to alter the terms based on evidence of a clerical error, if the evidence is strong enough. https://www.robinskaplan.com/~/media/pdfs/its%20a%20mistake%20correcting%20scriveners%20errors%20in%20insurance%20contracts.pdf?la=en https://www.robinskaplan.com/~/media/pdfs/its%20a%20mistake%... https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2771&context=journal_articles https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti... To summarize, there's something called the "parol evidence rule" which boils down to: if you have a final written agreement, and the text of the agreement is clear, you usually can't introduce extrinsic evidence (e.g. from the negotiation process) that the parties' intent was something other than what was written. However, there are a number of exceptions to that rule, and one of them is that you can introduce extrinsic evidence to try to prove the existence of a "mutual mistake", which can be grounds for "reformation" of a contract (i.e. correcting the mistake). A "mutual mistake" is when both parties are mistaken; on the other hand, a "unilateral mistake" (by one party) generally will not be corrected, unless there's also an element of fraud. Mutual mistake must be proven by the high standard of "clear and convincing evidence", as opposed to the normal standard in civil cases of "preponderance of the evidence", and in general there's a heavy presumption that the text reflects the parties' intent. But "scrivener's error" is often a valid basis for showing a mutual mistake. It depends on the quality of the evidence; also, the standards vary somewhat by jurisdiction.