In one sense, Scott may void the contract. A mistake was made that relates to the core of their deal. Randolph thought he was the first owner of the book. Based on the scenario, it’s hard to say that Randolph deliberately misrepresented the history of the book. Nonetheless, Randolph was mistaken. He was not the first owner of the book. Someone had previously used it, and that person marked it up. The nearly-new book that Scott thought he was contracting to purchase turned out not to be new at all. Randolph made a mistake, so Scott should get a refund. In turn, Randolph could contact the local bookstore that sold him the book and try to get his money back.

Alternately, it's possible to claim that Scott may not void the contract and that Randolph is not obligated to issue him a refund. One might argue that Scott is the party at fault. Before entering the contract, Scott should have carefully inspected the source of the contract—the book. Prior to buying the book, Scott should have thoroughly examined it. If he had done this, he might have discovered the underlined parts and known not to enter into the contract with Randolph. One could posit that it's not fair to blame Randolph for Scott's failure to accurately appraise the book.