Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PREPARED BY:
NOOR FARHANA BINTI ABDUL HALIM
LEB130070
Rectification:
- Generally, rectification is one of the remedies provided by the Specific Relief Act 1950 for
breach of contract that occurs.
- The relevant provisions in granting or applying for rectification is provided in Section 30, 31
and 32 of the Specific Relief Act.
It is common ground that before any rectification can be made there must have been
incidence of mutual mistake.
- The mistake of one party is not a good ground for rectification.
Elements:
i) There must equitable and conscientious agreement.
ii) It is essential that both parties had precisely the same intention on which the
document is inaccurate.
Pollock & Mulla on Indian Contracts and Specific Reliefs Acts (10th Ed); In a proper case
the court will amend the language of an instrument for the purpose of making it accord
with the true intention of the parties, having ascertained what that intention was and
also that the words as they stand fail to express it.
FACTS OF THE CASE
-It Is essential that both parties have had the precisely the same intention
on the point of which the document is inaccurate.
Held:
-Court is satisfied on balance of probabilities that TCF-1 was intended to be equitable and
conscientious agreement. This is based on the terms therein and the conduct of the parties
in ensuring its performance to indicate that intention. (TCF-2, TCF-3, TCF-14; proves the
contractual relationship of the parties in this case to carry out the work.)
-Having considered the relevant provisions of TCF-1, the words Estate Owner appeared in
the provisions does not reflect the intended purpose of the parties.
E.g: Clause 12 TCF-1 reads:
The contractor shall not without the written consent of the Estate Owner.. assigned this
contract or sub-contract
-This is because the defendant was not the true owner of the land and that the agreement
had nothing to do with Seatex (Land Owner). As, the defendant is only the employer of
plaintiff who wish to develop the land. Thus, to obtain the approval of the Estate owner
would be irrelevant.
Issue 2: Whether evidence adduced sufficiently made out a case for
rectification?
-Court followed the principle enunciated in Oh Hiam v Tham Khong [1980] 2 MLJ
159; the case for rectification must be made out having regard to the evidence and
circumstances of the case.
Held:
-Based on the arrangements and agreements between the parties, it is sufficiently
adduced that TCF-1 was intended to be the only agreement between the parties (to
carry out the work) and not just an agreement to govern the relationship between
the parties.
-In the course of the performance of the works pursuant to the agreement TCF-1,
the defendant knew that the plaintiff was involved and in fact dealt with plaintiff.
-Thus, evidence had been sufficiently adduced for rectification to be made.
Accordingly, court allowed the application for rectification of the agreement TCF-1
by substituting the words the Employer for the words the Estate Owner.