What happens if your contract does not say what you thought it did? Where it is shown that both parties were mistaken as to the meaning, the court will rectify the contract if doing so reflects the true intentions of both. But in cases of unilateral mistakes, the task for the court can be more complex. The Hurst Stores case, discussed in the 18 June and 2 July issues of Building, looked at whether a compromise agreement, signed by both parties, ought to be corrected to remove terms that (arguably) gave it final and binding effect. The final and binding effect was contrary to the intention of one of the parties to it. If the offending words stood, the mistaken party could not pursue various disruption claims submitted against the other some months after the compromise agreement was reached.
展开▼
