Collette Celine Littman and another v Aspen Oil (Broking) Limited
Language: English Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2005] EWCA Civ 1579, 19 December 2005. Appeal from a determination of a preliminary issue in ([2005] EWHC 1369 (Ch), [2005] NPC 88) where a break clause in the lease was worded incorrectly. The lease was amended since it was obvious what the mistake was, and was easily remedied as a matter of construction. On appeal, the tenant submitted that an alternative reasonable drafting error could be hypothesised, so the clause was void for uncertainty. "Held": Appeal dismissed. The four conditions for the rectification of a unilateral mistake were made out, and it did not matter that the result put the parties in a contractual position they had not agreed. The tenant's attempt to take advantage of an obvious drafting error was inequitable.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 133570-1001 |
[2005] EWCA Civ 1579, 19 December 2005. Appeal from a determination of a preliminary issue in ([2005] EWHC 1369 (Ch), [2005] NPC 88) where a break clause in the lease was worded incorrectly. The lease was amended since it was obvious what the mistake was, and was easily remedied as a matter of construction. On appeal, the tenant submitted that an alternative reasonable drafting error could be hypothesised, so the clause was void for uncertainty. "Held": Appeal dismissed. The four conditions for the rectification of a unilateral mistake were made out, and it did not matter that the result put the parties in a contractual position they had not agreed. The tenant's attempt to take advantage of an obvious drafting error was inequitable.