Anderson v Lambie: HL 25 Jan 1954

As the result of a mistake, a disposition of property conveyed the entirety of an estate which consisted mainly of a farm, but also included other property. The preceding missives of sale were capable of more than one meaning as to the extent of the subjects to be conveyed. The evidence established that the missives had themselves been preceded by an oral agreement for the sale of the farm alone.
Held: The appeal succeeded and the decision of the First Division reversed. Such problems with this type of mistake in expression could not be resolved by construing the document as it stood, unlike a mistake in expression which was obvious on the face of the document. Neither was this a situation where an agreement was vitiated by error: ‘in the present case the error only arose after the parties had reached agreement’. There must nevertheless be a remedy.
However, it was incompetent under Scots law for a defectively expressed document to be corrected by the court so as to give effect to the true agreement between the parties.
Lord Keith of Avonholm said that reduction was available in the event of a conveyance or contract ‘being expressed as regards essentials in different terms from what the parties really intended and had agreed between them’.
As to the remedy of reduction, Lord Reid said: ‘But, when it is sought to reduce a deed, it is necessary to go behind the deed and discover the real facts. The fact that the parties agreed to the missives is important evidence but it is not the only competent evidence. The question is not what the missives mean: if that were the question, the ordinary rule would apply that the meaning of a document must be found from its terms. The question is whether the real facts are such that the disposition must be reduced, and the existence of the missives does not alter the nature of the inquiry.’

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Keith of Avonholm

Citations:

[1954] UKHL 3, [1954] 1 WLR 303, [1954] 3 All ER 157 (Note), 1954 SLT (Notes) 22, 1954 SLT 73, 1954 SC (HL) 43

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKrupp v John Menzies Ltd SCS 16-May-1907
kruppSCS1907
The court considered whether there had been an error in the contract and how it should be dealt with. Lord President Dunedin said: ‘it is a very delicate matter to interfere with a written contract expressed in clear terms, and that parole proof . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Land, Litigation Practice, Contract

Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279713