Within the framework for exercising the right to rescind an erroneous declaration of intention, the normative position of the declarant’s fault varies significantly. Legislative models primarily fall into two categories: one where fault precludes rescission, and another where fault does not hinder it. China’s current law lacks explicit provisions regarding the element of fault and adopts a civil-commercial integrated legislative approach. However, distinct value orientations differentiate civil and commercial law: civil law emphasizes the protection of autonomy of will, while commercial law prioritizes efficiency and transactional security. Given the insufficient regulation of commercial acts under the Civil Code, judicial practice may adopt a “purposive restriction” approach when applying Article 147, thereby reasonably limiting the rescission of erroneous declarations made by commercial entities. Specifically, in civil contexts, rescission based on erroneous declarations should not require the absence of fault on the part of the declarant. In commercial contexts, where a commercial entity is at fault, it may not rescind a profit-seeking declaration on grounds of error; furthermore, declarations made to establish a commercial entity may not be rescinded due to error, regardless of the declarant’s fault.