Often a party to a contract wants to avoid his obligations by arguing that the contract was entered into because of a mistake, misrepresentation, undue influence, or duress.

Which of the following is true with regard to these areas of the law?

A person can successfully argue non est factum and avoid his obligations under a contract only if he was careless about the nature of the document

If a seller persuades a person to buy something by a fraudulent misrepresentation, the buyer could not ask for rescission and$/$or damages for the tort of deceit Where, because of a mistake, a written document does not embody the unchanged term of the original oral agreement, a party to the contract could ask the court for the equitable remedy of rescission

A person who wants to give a gift to a dominant person $($e$,$g$.,$ his doctor$)$ can do so easily and there is no issue of undue influence

A buyer could be awarded the equitable remedy of rescission if the seller honestly believed that his misrepresentation, which persuaded the buyer to buy, was true