Hayward v Planet Projects Pty Limited

The matter of Hayward v Planet Projects Pty Limited was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Hayward, was the vendor of a property which was sold to the defendant, Planet Projects. Upon completion of the sale, it was discovered that the contracts exchanged were not identical. Hayward sought an order for rectification, arguing that the contracts should be amended to reflect the true agreement between the parties. Planet Projects contested the application, asserting that any discrepancy was due to an oversight and that there was no intention to alter the terms agreed upon.
The court was required to determine whether there was a mutual intention to be bound by the same terms in the contracts, and if so, whether the non-identical contracts could be rectified to reflect that intention. The court considered the conduct of the parties, the terms of the contracts, and the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether there was a common intention to be bound by the same terms. The court also needed to assess whether rectification was an appropriate remedy in this context.
The Supreme Court held that there was a mutual intention between the parties to be bound by the same terms, despite the non-identical contracts. The court found that the parties had intended to include specific terms in the contract, which were absent in one of the exchanged contracts. Given the clear intention and the absence of any prejudice to the defendant, the court granted the application for rectification. The contracts were amended to include the intended terms, ensuring that both parties were bound by the same obligations and rights. The court's decision underscored the importance of accurately reflecting the true agreement in the contracts exchanged between parties.