Wollondilly Retirement Village Pty Limited v Eid

Wollondilly Retirement Village, a company, sued Eid, an individual, over the sale of a strip of land. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The retirement village claimed that the contract for the sale of land contained an omission, and sought rectification of the contract to reflect the true intention of the parties. The strip of land, which was 5 metres wide, was omitted from the contract, and the retirement village argued that this was an error that needed to be corrected.

The court had to determine whether the omission was significant enough to warrant rectification, and whether there was evidence of the parties' true intentions. The retirement village argued that the omission was a clerical error and that the parties had intended to include the strip of land in the sale. Eid, on the other hand, argued that the omission was not a clerical error, but rather a deliberate exclusion of the strip of land from the sale. The court had to weigh the evidence and determine which party's version of events was more credible.

The court found that the omission was a significant error that warranted rectification. The court found that the retirement village had established the necessary criteria for rectification, including that the omission was due to a clerical error, and that the parties had intended to include the strip of land in the sale. The court also found that Eid had knowledge of the strip of land and had not raised any objections to its inclusion in the sale. The court therefore ordered that the contract be rectified to include the strip of land, and that the retirement village be awarded damages for the loss suffered as a result of the omission.