Stephens contends that such alleged misrepresentations are not actionable in Georgia, as a matter of law, since each party had the opportunity to review the contracts for itself. Stephens cites Vickers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 210 Ga. App. 78 (1993), and Gardiner v. McDaniel, 202 Ga. App. 663 (1992), to support its argument. In both Vickers and Gardiner, a plaintiff raised fraud claims arising out of a contract the plaintiff had signed with the defendants. The court found:

Id. 210 Ga. App. 78 ( 435 SE2d 253) (1993). Id.

Daniel v. Conrad, 242 Ga. 119, 120 ( 249 S.E.2d 603) (1978). See also Vickers v. Roadway Express, 210 Ga. App. 78, 79 (2) ( 435 S.E.2d 253) (1993); White v. Lott, 175 Ga. App. 263, 265 (2) ( 333 S.E.2d 118) (1985). Such a conclusion is also consistent with the general rule that

Smith v. Wilfong, 218 Ga. App. 503, 507 ( 462 S.E.2d 163) (1995). See also Vickers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 210 Ga. App. 78, 79 (2) ( 435 S.E.2d 253) (1993). In the case sub judice, Mrs. Kodadek testified that Dr. Lieberman affirmatively misrepresented to her the size of the needle that remained in Ryan's throat and that she relied to her detriment on that representation.

In light of plaintiff's failure to use due diligence as set forth above, rescission of the contract for fraud in the inducement was not authorized. Likewise, plaintiff's failure to use due diligence in this case also makes rescission based on mutual mistake of fact improper. See Vickers v. Roadway Express, 210 Ga. App. 78, 80 (3) ( 435 S.E.2d 253) (1993). Accordingly, we conclude that the superior court erred in rescinding the contract in this case, and in awarding damages to plaintiff in the amount of the expenditures he had made in improving the property.