Wrong Name Agreement

Henderson J came from there. when he objectively considered that “the natural intention to impute the parties” was that the contracting party should be the principal operating company within the group, namely Y Ltd. Henderson J. acknowledged that if it was impossible to identify a part in the construction sector, given the actual known context of the parties, the contract had to fail by uncertainty, unless it could be corrected. If the partners have been working for some time under the terms of the agreement, they are unlikely to be invalid. The reason is that, under the terms of the agreement, the actions of the parties clearly show the intention to be bound by the agreement. It would be difficult to prove anything else with a false signature. After recognizing it, we organized a change that would change the name of the offer and acceptance. If the purchase had been settled with the offer and acceptance in its original state, the certificate of ownership would have been issued under the false name. In Liberty Mercian`s speech, the High Court had to address a number of issues, including whether to order a correction of a written agreement which, according to the applicant, cited the wrong part: the contract examined the name of a dormant company, Cuddy Engineering, within the respondent group of companies, instead of the one that had already begun working for the applicant, Cuddy Demolition. In particular, the applicant, Liberty Mercian, attempted to establish that the dormant company`s designation was a false name or an error in how it would lead to a correction. A recent case study showed that driver`s licenses do not always have the client`s full legal name.

Our client, Michaelo (name changed), is in the process of arranging the purchase of his new home. To avoid such problems, identify purchasers from their passport (or birth certificate) and driver`s license. Make sure customers know that the name on the offer and acceptance must be their full legal name. The applicant argued that the contracting party`s name should be corrected as a “wrong designation,” but Henderson J. did not consider it the right approach. A false name, which refers to a misrepresentation or misrepresentation of a name or term, is when a party knows who it wishes to refer to, but accidentally inflicts the false name on that unit. In Chartbrook, Lord Hoffmann acknowledged, albeit with two conditions, that the design error correction test presented by Lord Justice Brightman in East v Pantiles (Plant Hire) Ltd [1981] was to correct the written correction in order to accurately present the agreement between the parties. However, the correction is only ordered in certain circumstances. As the recent decision in Liberty Mercian/Cuddy [2013] shows, rectification may be refused even if a party mistakenly used the name of a dormant company within the group with which it wished to enter into a contract, not the company that was to perform the work under the contract. Mr. Justice Ramsey`s decision gives us a useful overview of where corrections could be ordered and where tests could be used to determine this issue.