The landlord negotiating a new lease proposed to the tenant that ‘the terms and conditions contained in the present lease to be embodied in the new lease where applicable.’ The tenant accepted this offer, but the new lease as executed made the tenant liable for repairs which under the old lease had been the responsibility of the landlord. In answer to a claim for rectification, the landlord said that the new lease was in accordance with what he had understood to be the effect of his offer.
Held: This was irrelevant. What mattered was the objective meaning of what the landlord had written.
Sir Raymond Evershed MR said: ‘If the defendants . . did misconstrue [the letter] that is unfortunate for them, but at least they cannot be heard to say that their letter was intended to mean anything other than that which the words convey to the reader as a piece of ordinary English.’
Judges:
Sir Raymond Evershed MR
Citations:
(1950) 84 Lloyds Rep 97
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Daventry District Council v Daventry and District Housing Ltd CA 13-Oct-2011
The appellant challenged refusal of rectification of its agreement with the defendant. They asserted either mutual or unilateral mistake. The parties had agreed for the transfer of housing stock and management staff to the respondents. The claimant . .
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: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.472862