Principle 9: Rectification
Clicks: 2
ID: 313353
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.3
/100
2 views
1 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #588 of 1,518 articles by views in Oxford University Press eBooks
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 1,518 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract This chapter considers the circumstances in which a court can change the meaning of the words which the parties have used in their contract. If a written contract does not record the parties’ intention at the time it was entered into, because of a mistake, the contract may be amended to reflect that intention. The principles concerning rectification are controversial, with different judges expressing different views about the importance of objective or subjective common intention. This chapter discusses the different possible approaches to rectification and the current state of the law.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7161396301
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Richard Calnan, Paul S. Davies |
| Journal | Oxford University Press eBooks |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/law/9780198897163.003.0010
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.