header-logo header-logo

08 November 2018 / Tamsin Cox , Julia Petrenko
Issue: 7816 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Tracking changes & auto-correct

Rectification: a duty to correct other people’s mistakes? Tamsin Cox & Julia Petrenko report

  • In CDS (Superstores International) Limited v Place Road Properties Limited the court ordered rectification of a lease on the basis of common mistake (and alternatively unilateral mistake) in circumstances where the parties had reached agreement in relation to the rent provision in a lease, but the landlord later sent the tenant a tracked-changes version of the lease.
  • Practitioners should be aware that, where there is prior accord between the parties and one party seeks to deviate from the same, sending the other side an amended version of the document containing the proposed change will not necessarily suffice to prevent a rectification claim from being brought if the other side only spot the change after completion.

Transactional practitioners will no doubt have experienced the to-ing and fro-ing of many versions of a document, amended in ‘tracked-changes’, shortly before completion of a proposed agreement. The decision of Lord Justice May sitting in Bristol County Court in CDS (Superstores International) Limited v Place

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll