Appeal Regarding Contract Voidability Due to Error of Essential Nature

An appeal was lodged against a judgment that ordered the reimbursement of a sum paid under a contract, based on the argument that the contract was void due to a lack of valid consent, specifically citing error regarding the essential nature of the obligation. The appellate court found that the purported error did not actually relate to the essential nature of the contract, as the shared understanding of the transaction, despite differing interpretations of its legal qualification, pointed toward a mutually intended obligation, thus affirming the contract's validity. Consequently, the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, upholding the lower court's finding that the conditions for voidability based on error were not met, as the error was not substantial enough to vitiate consent to the core transaction.