The written contract contained a restrictive covenant limiting the defendant’s freedom to carry on the business of a ‘provision merchant’ other than on behalf of the plaintiff company. On the facts found, the parties in their discussions before the contract was signed never reached any consensus on the intended scope of the restrictive covenant.
Held: The claim for rectification failed.
Buckley LJ said: ‘For rectification it is not enough to set about to find what one or even both of the parties to the contract intended. What you have to find out is what intention was communicated by one side to the other, and with what common intention and common agreement they made their bargain.’
Sir Herbert Cozens-Hardy MR said that rectification ‘may be regarded as a branch of the doctrine of specific performance’ and ‘The essence of rectification is to bring the document which was expressed and intended to be in pursuance of a prior agreement into harmony with that prior agreement. Indeed, it may be regarded as a branch of the doctrine of specific performance. It presupposes a prior contract, and it requires proof that, by common mistake, the final completed instrument as executed fails to give proper effect to the prior contract.’
Fletcher Moulton LJ said: ‘To my mind, it is not only clear law, but it is absolutely necessary logic, that there cannot be a rectification unless there has been a pre-existing contract which has been inaptly expressed.’
Judges:
Sir Herbert Cozens-Hardy MR, Buckley LJ
Citations:
(1911) 104 LT 85
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 . .
Cited – Joscelyne v Nissen CA 1970
A father entered into a written contract with his daughter by which he transferred to her his car hire business in return for her agreement to pay him a pension and discharge certain expenses. In their discussions it had been agreed between them . .
Cited – Frederick E Rose (London) Limited v William H Pim Junior and Co Limited 1953
The plaintiffs, who were London merchants, had been asked by Egyptian buyers to supply ‘feveroles’. Not knowing what this term meant, they asked the defendants’ representative, who responded that ‘feveroles’ meant horsebeans. Relying on this . .
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, Equity
Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.472861
