Two contracts for the sale of sultanas on cif terms were drawn up by a broker acting for the sellers. By mistake, the broker used a form intended for spot contracts instead of the form for cif contracts with the result that the written contracts did not include, as was customary in the trade, a clause exempting the seller from liability in the event of war preventing the delivery of the goods. No reference had been made to this clause in negotiating the contracts because it was a usual clause which did not need to be spelt out, and no one noticed until later that the clause was not included in the forms used to document the transactions.
Held: The sellers were entitled to have the contractual documents rectified to insert the war clause. The parties had taken it for granted that, when the written contracts were drawn up, if anyone read through them they would find the clause there.
Citations:
(1923) 17 Ll L Rep 183, (1923) 40 TLR 124
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd CA 31-Jul-2019
Rectification – Chartbrook not followed
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Equity, Contract
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.640344
