What best describes Carole's legal rights regarding the purchase of a sterile dog?

Carole's situation involves a mutual mistake regarding the characteristics of the dog she purchased, specifically its sterility. In contract law, a mutual mistake exists when both parties hold incorrect beliefs about a fundamental fact concerning the contract. Here, if Carole and the seller both believed the dog was sterile but the dog is not, this impacts the essence of what Carole intended to purchase.

The law allows a party to rescind a contract when a mutual mistake is present, particularly if the mistake concerns a material fact that significantly affects the contract's performance. Sterility could be viewed as a material fact, especially if Carole's decision to purchase the dog was based upon its expected characteristics. Hence, recognizing this mutual mistake grants Carole the right to cancel the contract and seek a remedy. This cancellation upholds the fundamental principle that parties should only be bound to agreements based on accurate and agreed-upon facts.

In contrast, the other options do not appropriately reflect the circumstances of the situation. A unilateral mistake would not allow Carole to avoid the contract if only she was mistaken. If sterility were deemed non-material, then she wouldn't have grounds to rescind; similarly, she wouldn't need to pursue damages if the contract can simply be rescinded due to the