Contract; proof of terms; parol evidence rule; exceptions; rectification of error.
Facts: Pukallus entered into a written contract to buy 'subdivision 1 of portion 1154 parish of Cumkillenbar in the county of Aubigny in Queensland.' Because of a wrongly placed fence, both Pukallus and the seller Cameron thought that subdivision 1 included a borehole and 27 acres of cultivated land. In fact these things were outside the subdivision. When the mistake was discovered, Pukallus wanted the terms of the written contract changed to make it reflect what he said had really been agreed with Cameron.
Issue: Should the written contract be rectified to include the borehole and 27 acres of cultivated land?
Decision: In the light of the evidence, the contract should not be rectified.
Reason: There was no evidence that what had really been agreed was the sale of land that included a borehole and cultivated land. Objectively, what was agreed was simply the sale of subdivision 1, which was mistakenly thought to include those things. Furthermore, what Pukallus said had been agreed was not proved with sufficient precision to allow the court to formulate new terms. Accordingly, the terms of the written contract could not be rectified.