National private law systems of European Union member states have different approaches with respect to freely allowing or restricting the concurrence of avoidance for mistake and termination of contract. For instance in Germany^*1 , upon sale of a defective thing, the priority of applying a contractual legal remedy applies, and termination is either excluded or significantly restricted, even though a case of mistake per se would actually exist. The Austrian and Swiss civil codes, however, allow free concurrence of such claims; in Spain and Italy, juridical practice has recognised the right of one party — the buyer — to choose the most suitable remedy.^*2 There are no provisions in the Estonian Law of Obligations Act^*3 (LOA) or the General Part of the Civil Code Act^*4 (GPCCA) that would prevent the entitled party from using the most suitable remedy if both termination and avoidance are simultaneously available. Conflicting viewpoints have, however, been expressed on this matter in Estonian legal discourse.^*5