Absent from knowing all the details, from what I read, it doesn't sound like you intentionally misrepresented the dealership. Also, I am not clear if you knew of the mistake prior to taking the money. But it sounds like you may have changed positions and relied on this money anyway. Here is a case I found that might help. Read the underlined sentence.
A party may rescind a contract if the party's consent was given by mistake. (Civ.Code, § 1689, subd. (b)(1); Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261, 278.) “A factual mistake by one party to a contract, or unilateral mistake, affords a ground for rescission in some circumstances. Civil Code section 1577 states in relevant part: ‘Mistake of fact is a mistake, not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person making the mistake, and consisting in: [¶] 1. An unconscious ignorance or forgetfulness of a fact past or present, material to the contract....’ [Fn. omitted.]” ( Donovan, supra, at p. 278.) The California Supreme Court in Donovan held that an automobile dealer's unilateral mistake of fact justified rescission of a sales contract where the mistake was the dealer's ignorance that a newspaper advertisement misstated the intended sales price. ( Id. at pp. 279-282, 294.)
Here, in contrast, the mistake is Revere's ignorance of the warranty in the escrow instructions due to Fine's failure to read the escrow instructions before signing them. “ ‘ “The general rule is that when a person with the capacity of reading and understanding an instrument signs it, he is, in the absence of fraud and imposition, bound by its contents, and is estopped from saying that its provisions are contrary to his intention or understanding.” ‘ [Citation.]” ( Jefferson v. Department of Youth Authority (2002) 28 Cal.4th 299, 303.) Fine offered no excuse for his failure to read the escrow instructions apart from purportedly excusable neglect, and did not claim fraud or imposition. The evidence shows that Fine failed to read the escrow instructions completely before signing them because he assumed that they would not deviate from the sales contract. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the court's decision that Revere was not entitled to rescission in Mendoza.FN8