In a sale and immediate sub-sale of land, the contracts used different standard terms and conditions. The result was that the sub-sale excluded a right of access to the property.
Neuberger J summarised the law in what were then uncontroversial terms as follows: ‘Rectification of a bilateral document can be obtained in two types of case. The first is where the party seeking rectification can establish that both parties to the document had an intention that it should contain something different from that which it actually contains, that that intention had been communicated between the parties before execution of the document, and that the intention was shared by both parties up to the time that they executed the document. The second type of case is where the party opposing the claim for rectification appreciated that the document departed from what had previously been negotiated between the parties, and that the other party was under a misapprehension, and the first party, though aware of this, forbore from drawing his attention to the error.’
Judges:
Neuberger J
Citations:
[2000] EGCS 89, (2001) 81 P and CR 29
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.
Contract
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.219180
