Walker owns a cow that she cannot breed. A veterinarian thoroughly examines the animal and advises Walker that the cow is infertile. Walker then offers the cow for sale at a price of $1,000, whereas a fertile cow of the same type, variety, and age would command a price of $15,000. On April 1, Sharewood expresses interest in purchasing the cow and asks Walker why her asking price is so low. Walker explains that the cow is infertile. Manifesting his understanding that the cow is indeed infertile and that such is the reason for the low price, Sharewood accepts the offer and thus agrees to purchase the cow. The parties create and sign a writing by which they agree to the purchase and sale of the cow for $1,000. The contract provides that Sharewood will pay the purchase price and that Walker will deliver the cow on May 1.

On April 15, Walker, still possessing the cow, thinks it might be pregnant. Surprised at what she thinks to be so, she calls her veterinarian again. The veterinarian examines the cow and advises Walker that his earlier diagnosis of infertility had been wrong, that the cow is pregnant, and that it had been pregnant for some two months. On May 1, Sharewood tenders the $1,000 purchase price. Walker explains that the cow is fertile and, indeed, pregnant. She refuses the payment and declines to convey the cow.

Sharewood sues Walker for breach. Referring to the cows fertility and citing mutual mistake, Walker attempts to void the contract. Which of the following facts is legally relevant to Walkers claim of mutual mistake?

Group of answer choices

Sharewood believed the cow was infertile only because Walker had so represented it

Each party led the other to understand that he or she took the cows infertility for a fact

The parties formed their contract before they were to complete the sale itself

Walker had a reasonable basis on which to believe the cow was infertile