The court considered the circumstances required for rectification of a contract after a unilateral mistake. Pennycuick J said: ‘a party is entitled to rectification of a contract upon proof that he believed a particular term to be included in the contract, and that the other party concluded the contract with the omission or a variation of that term in the knowledge that the first party believed the term to be included. . . The principle is stated in Snell on Equity, 25th edition (1960), p 569 as follows: ‘By what appears to be a species of equitable estoppel, if one party to a transaction knows that the instrument contains a mistake in his favour but does nothing to correct it, he (and those claiming under him) will be precluded from resisting rectification on the ground that the mistake is unilateral and not common.”
References: [1961] Ch 555, [1961] 2 All ER 545
Judges: Pennycuick J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Approved – Riverlate Properties Ltd v Paul CA 1974 ([1975] Ch 133, [1974] 2 All ER 656)
A lessor sought to have the lease rectified against the tenant, saying the tenant had sufficient knowledge of the error in the lease to permit that remedy.
Held: The tenant had no such knowledge as would have brought the doctrine into play. In . . - Cited – George Wimpey UK Ltd v VI Construction Ltd CA 3-Feb-2005 (, [2005] EWCA Civ 77, Times 16-Feb-05, [2005] BLR 135)
A land purchase contract had been rectified by the judge for unilateral mistake. A factor had been dropped from a formula for calculating the price.
Held: The judge’s conclusion that the circumstances existed to allow a rectification was . . - Cited – Thomas Bates and Sons Ltd v Wyndham’s Lingerie Ltd CA 21-Nov-1980 ([1981] 1 WLR 505, , [1980] EWCA Civ 3, [1981] 1 All ER 1077)
An application was made for rectification of a rent review clause in a lease. When executing the lease, the tenants’ officer, Mr Avon, noticed that the rent review clause in the lease drafted by the landlords was defective in not including a . . - Cited – FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd CA 31-Jul-2019 (, [2019] EWCA Civ 1361)
Opportunity for an appellate court to clarify the correct test to apply in deciding whether the written terms of a contract may be rectified because of a common mistake.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge was right to conclude that an . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 22 September 2020; Ref: scu.222559
