000			01735cab a2200229 4500
001			ABS68790
008			050401n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129216
100			_aDilley, S.
245		4	_aThe devil really is in the detail
260			_c2005
490			_aNew Law Journal _v155(7167) 11 March 2005, 350-351(2)
520			_aExamines the implications of "George Wimpey UK Ltd v VI Construction Ltd" ([2005] EWHC Civ 77, Times 16 February 2005) in respect of rectification of contracts and the inference of honesty. Claimant developer (W) had entered into a contract with the defendant land vendor (VI), which included an overage payment condition. Both parties agreed that the overage payment formula would need increasing as the development was enhanced. VI's new overage formula omitted the value of the enhancements. W failed to notice this when signing the contract and sought contract rectification in the HC. The HC ruled that VI had crossed the line from legitimate negotiation into the area of unfair dealing by failing to draw W's attention to the elimination of the enhancements. VI successfully appealed with the CA deciding that dishonesty must be pleaded in full and put to the person who was alleged to be dishonest. CA held that the requirements for rectification for unilateral mistake were not met. View the appeal case at www.bailii.org.
590			_aABS
650			_aGEORGE WIMPEY UK LTD V VI COMPONENTS LTD
650			_aContracts _96232
650			_aNEGOTIATION
650			_aOVERAGE PAYMENTS
690			_aBUILT ENVIRONMENT-BUILDING CONTRACT FORMS
856			_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/77.html _zView the decision on the BAILII website...
942			_n0
999			_c74999 _d74999