How have courts dealt with errors in an annuity contract?

Of the cases referred to by counsel, only one has come close on its facts to this case, though the subject matter of the contract is an annuity rather than an automobile. Sykes v. R., 1938 CanLII 243 (FC), [1939] Ex. C.R. 77, [1939] 3 D.L.R. 585, affirmed 1939 CanLII 348 (SCC), [1945] 4 D.L.R. 807 (S.C.C.), involved a plaintiff who applied to the federal government to purchase an annuity. The appropriate federal officials quoted him a price. The plaintiff commenced paying the necessary instalments. Some time later the government officials discovered that they had erred in their annuity calculations, and demanded more money. The plaintiff sued to enforce the contract on its original terms. Maclean J. held that the federal government was not entitled to be relieved of its obligations under the original terms of the contract. He said this at pp. 592-93: But generally, where a party is seeking to enforce a contract which he has entered into in good faith, and unaware of a mistake of fact made by the other party, such lack of knowledge will as a rule operate to make the contract enforceable, notwithstanding the unilateral mistake, The court found that there was no error as to the subject matter or terms of the contract. The only error was in the underlying calculations, of which the plaintiff knew nothing and of which he could be expected to know nothing. The government was required to bear the loss ensuing from its own error.