I had the same takeaway. The court didnt say the September sale price represented in the computer must be honored. It rolled the sale back based on the august d

I had the same takeaway. The court didnt say the September sale price represented in the computer must be honored. It rolled the sale back based on the august date in the contract. This is the court essentially saying "you both errored in executing the contract as written" and then trying to figure out what would have happened in the hypothetical where each executed it faithfully. Looking at the ticker, and august average sale price was lower than the September transaction date.