In Mr. Chartbrook`s action, Lord Hoffmann argued that the court only had to objectively consider what a reasonable observer would have understood of the pre-contract situation between the parties. He felt that the approach should be the same as the interpretation of a treaty if the subjective views of the parties in favour of a focus on the view of a reasonable objective observer were not taken into account. Although this emphasis on objective opinions was not binding, it was controversial and was the subject of numerous review articles and speeches, although the Daventry District Council Court of Appeal was followed against Daventry – District Housing Ltd. 1 (reluctantly). that the party who objected to the correction was aware or should have been aware of error 2. and that the ability to exploit and deal with the party would amount to fraud or the equivalent of fraud. Requests for adjustment will fail if the parties` common intention cannot be established with sufficient certainty. If one party has not participated in the other`s intentions, it is likely that there will be no common intention and that the request for rectification will likely fail. “The correction is about contracts and documents, not intentions. To make improvements, it is necessary to prove that the parties were in full agreement on the terms of their contract, but poorly written by an error, and in this respect, in order to determine the terms of the contract, do not look in the inner spirit of the parties, in their intentions, nor do you do so when forming another contract. Rectification is a remedy by which a court orders an amendment to a written document to reflect what it should have said. It is a fair remedy, that is, the circumstances in which they can be applied are limited. The correction is contrary to the Parol rule and constitutes an established exception.
The Parol rule is that oral evidence is not admissible or permissible to add, vary or contradict a written instrument. However, correction is an exception to the rule. Therefore, in order to remedy a mutual error, it appears that the applicant indicates that the parties have entered into a pre-agreement, the terms of which are final and can be found, that the agreement was still effective in the execution of the act, that the instrument does not accurately cover that earlier agreement and that, if corrected as proposed, the instrument would execute the agreement. Mistakes can happen. What happens if, as a result of such an error, the parties enter into a contract that does not reflect their prior agreement or intentions? Such situations can yield economically absurd results or lead a party to assume incriminating obligations that it has never taken into account when negotiating the contract.