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 false with regard to these areas of the law?

Question $4$ options:

Independent legal advice given to a person who wants to give a gift to a dominant person $($e$.$g$.,$ his doctor$)$ is good evidence to rebut a presumption of undue influence

A buyer could not be awarded the equitable remedy of rescission if the seller honestly believed that his misrepresentation, which persuaded the buyer to buy, was true

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 rectification

If a seller persuades a person to buy something by a fraudulent misrepresentation, the buyer could ask for rescission and$/$or damages for the tort of deceit

A person can successfully argue non est factum and avoid his obligations under a contract only if he was misled about the very nature of the document and was not careless