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 it was not binding, the emphasis on objective views has been the subject of many controversies and has been the subject of numerous magazine articles and speeches, although they have been followed (reluctantly) by the Court of Appeal at the Daventry District Council against Daventry – District Housing Ltd.  The contracting parties may have had a common intention or consent when they established their contract on what it meant. , but, in a way, this meaning has not been reflected in the drafting, i.e. it differs from the objective importance of the contractual document, which is established according to the rules of interpretation of the contract (for which the practical reference: rules of interpretation of the contract more generally read). In the appeal process, the Tribunal added that, in cases where rectification was an issue, it was within the Tribunal`s jurisdiction to consider conduct under the treaty. 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.
If z.B. the name of one of the parties is a critical element of the agreement, the contract is cancelled by a corresponding error. This could be the case with a contract with an athlete or musician. Another critical error would be a point that the parties do not know, which no longer exists. The correction relates to changes made in a written contract. These changes are made by exchanging part or all of the original text with an updated text to accurately indicate the agreement envisaged by the parties. When a court corrects a document, it means that the court intends to place the parties where they should have been if the error had not occurred in advance. However, there may be a unilateral error in the sense used in contract law where one party feels that a particular clause is contained in the contract and the other person knows that the other party believed that way.
This can happen when one person makes a very obvious mistake and the other party is entitled in silence. In this case, a correction may be ordered. The legal test to correct errors in women was described by the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General Canada v Fairmont Hotels 2016 CSC 56:1. Improvements are made when it is established that the written agreement, which is supposed to still be in force, does not specifically cover the agreement of the parties; 2. It is not possible to rectify the agreement itself, z.B. if the parties declare that the agreement results in unexpected or unexpected results.3 The quality of the evidence must be clear and convincing; If the person creating the voluntary count or trust is no longer alive, the correction can be granted more easily. Extraordinary correction may be permitted, even if agents and agents do not agree.