[2007] EWCA Civ 363, 27 April 2007. Considers whether a clause omitted in error from a tenancy can be supplied by the court to restore the original and intended meaning of the contract. K appealed against the decision that N was entitled to correct a break clause in the lease. A number of words contained in parentheses had been mistakenly left out of the final draft, which had been intended to confer further restriction upon K's right to break the lease. The restriction was that a rent increase must have taken place. "Held": N's claim to correction of the clause should not have been granted. N?s alternative submission that modification of the contract to reflect only those clauses which were identical in the draft and the final tenancy could not be accepted. However the mistake in the final contract was not binding. The erroneous clause would have provided K with two further opportunities to break the lease. It was implausible to suggest such conditions would be drafted this way. The parenthesised was intended only as explanation. Reading of the lease confirms this. Comparison with the draught renders the error unmistakeable. The spirit of the agreement should be used. Appeal dismissed.