(Mauritius) The appeal concerned an option to purchase land. The parties differed as to the identity of the land covered, and as to the service of the notice exercising the option. Certain factual elements had not been resolved in the lower courts, and while reasserting their reluctance to investigate matters of fact, the court agreed to look at some factual issues. After many years the claimant was unable to produce evidence of the service of a particular notice, only a copy of the letter sent. An apparent mistake by the parties in referring to a plan which did not accord with the expectations of either of them would not vitiate the contractual option. Each party thought the plan referred to was in a certain form.
[2001] UKPC 25, Appeal No 50 of 1999
Bailii, PC, PC
England and Wales
Updated: 18 August 2021; Ref: scu.163292