What equitable remedy allows a court to correct a written contract to reflect both parties' true intentions?

The concept of reformation as an equitable remedy is integral in contract law. It provides a mechanism for the court to modify a written contract when it does not accurately reflect the true intentions of the parties involved. This situation often arises from clerical errors, misunderstandings, or miscommunications that lead to a written document that fails to encapsulate what both parties intended at the time of agreement.

Reformation acknowledges that the original agreement may have been valid, but due to some mistake, the documented version does not align with the actual intent. By allowing a court to reform the contract, it ensures that fairness is upheld, allowing both parties to benefit from an arrangement that accurately depicts their agreement.

In contrast, the other options represent different legal principles. Revision may imply making changes, but it lacks the formal recognition and specific legal authority that reformation entails. Restitution focuses on returning a party to their original position before a contract, rather than correcting the terms of the contract itself. Rescission deals with voiding a contract, effectively reverting the parties back to a state before the contract was made, which is different from correcting its terms. This distinction underlines why reformation is the appropriate equitable remedy for the scenario presented.