The cherrytruck case is not a good analogy because in that both the buyer and the seller and indicated to have equal sighting of the truck. A better analogy would be if only the seller has seen the truck and he tells the buyer that "I have seen a truck that holds 1500 pounds of cherries. Would you buy the 1500 pounds of cherries from me? The contract is only written to mention 1500 pounds of cherries in this analogy and not to mention the truck at all as the pirate exposure was not written into the contract in real world situation either. I assume this truck is supposed to be an analogy to the pirate risk?
Actually the cherrytruck analogy could be made even better analogy by saying that the seller says "I have seen a truck with 1500 pounds of cherries and I know because I am an expert of cherrytrucks and I also publicize ratings of how much cherries each truck carries". This is of course analogy to the credit ratings that Patrick was also making and so claiming to be an expert of risk assessment.
Would it be reasonable for some normal people to assume that somebody who runs a business has more intimate knowledge of risks associated with the business than some external party especially when the person running the business is also claiming to be a specific expert on risk assessment?
They either didn't understand or didn't appreciate the significant *indirect* Pirate exposure the portfolio had ... making the very same mistake in the very same way
This is critical difference. They did not make the same mistake and especially not in the same way. Patrick should have been in a position to much better understand what is happening in his business. It makes no sense to say the lenders should have understood Patricks business enough and in same detail avaliable to Patrick to be able to make the judgement. Patrick on the other hand should have understood these issues and in the case he does not he should not have made claims about them or pay if they are false. It is much more sensible to say that some lenders should be able to take what they are being told at face value and rely on that.
Each of the lenders have their own set of assumptions. I would not even claim that two different lenders did the very same mistake the very same way.