- Cited — FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd (Rev 1) 2019-07-31
“…art of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century what eventually became a “formidable array of judicial opinion” (per Buckley LJ in Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86, 93) in support of the view that a contractual document could only be rectified in order to bring it into conformity with a contract that already existed befor…”
- Cited — FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd (Rev 1) 2019-07-31
“…As later noted by the Court of Appeal in Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86, 90, Lovell & Christmas Ltd v Wall was not mentioned in textbooks and seems to have disappeared from professional sight for many years. It was not cited in Shi…”
- Cited — FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd (Rev 1) 2019-07-31
“…The “lost cause” (per Buckley LJ in Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86, 91) of Lovell & Christmas Ltd v Wall was re-discovered in Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd v William H Pim Jnr & Co Ltd [1953] 2 QB 450. This was the ‘horsebeans…”
- Cited — FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd (Rev 1) 2019-07-31
“…ification may only be granted to bring a document into conformity with a prior concluded contract was finally resolved in the leading case of Joscelynev Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86. A father entered into a written contract with his daughter by which he transferred to her his car hire business in return for her agreement to pay him a pensi…”
- Cited — FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd (Rev 1) 2019-07-31
“…the court, concluded that “the law is as expounded by Simonds J in Crane’s case with the qualification that some outward expression of accord is required”: see [1970] 2 QB 86 at 98.…”
- Cited — FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd (Rev 1) 2019-07-31
“…ated by Buckley LJ in Lovell & Christmas Ltd v Wall (1911) 104 LT 85, 93, in the passage we have quoted earlier (and which was also quoted in Joscelynev Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86, 92) when he said:…”
- Cited — FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd (Rev 1) 2019-07-31
“…“In view of the decision in Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86, we can take it in this court … that a claimant for rectification has to show a common continuing intention of the parties, outwardly expressed or communicated…”
- Cited — FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd (Rev 1) 2019-07-31
“…e expression “true agreement” is being used to refer, not to a mere appearance of agreement, but to an actual ‘consensus ad idem’ or what in Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86, 97, the Court of Appeal described as an “outwardly expressed accord of minds”.…”
- Approved — FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd (Rev 1) 2019-07-31
“…A similar question potentially arose in Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86, 98-99, as to whether the Court of Appeal was bound by its previous decision in Crane v Hegeman-Harris CoInc [1939] 4 All ER 68 which approved the analysis of …”
- Cited — FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd (Rev 1) 2019-07-31
“…ferred) common intention and mistake in order to obtain rectification of a contract. In particular, the important decisions of this court in Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86 and Britoil plc v Hunt Overseas Oil Inc [1994] CLC 561 were not cited in the Daventry case. In a lecture given to TECBAR on 31 October 2013, “Does Rectificatio…”
- Cited — FSHC Group Holdings Ltd v Glas Trust Corporation Ltd (Rev 1) 2019-07-31
“…The third authority referred to by Lord Hoffmann, and the only one which post-dates the seminal decision of the Court of Appeal in Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86, is the statement of Mustill J in The Olympic Pride [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 67, 72, that it is “the words and acts of the parties demonstrating their intention, n…”