Dr. John Holm signed a two-year employment agreement with Gateway Anesthesia Associates, PLLC. During negotiations for the agreement, Gateway’s president, Dr. Jon Nottingham, told Holm that on completion of the contract he would become a partner in the firm and that during the term he would be paid “like a partner.” The written agreement did not reflect this promise—the contract read that Holm would be paid based on “net collections” for his services and did not state that he would become a partner. Later, Gateway told Holm that it did not intend to make him a partner. Holm filed a complaint in an Arizona state court against Gateway, alleging breach. Before the trial, Holm filed a motion to reform the contract to express what he had been told. Nottingham did not dispute Holm’s account. What is the basis for the reformation of a contract? Is it appropriate in this case? Why or why not? [Holm v. Gateway Anesthesia Associates, PLLC, 2018 WL 770503 (Ariz.Ct.App. Div. 1 2018)] (See Equitable Remedies.)