| 单词 | Rectification |
| 释义 | 糾正 An equitable remedy involving variation of a document to record the terms of an agreement as fully and accurately as all parties originally intended it to: Thames Guaranty Ltd v Campbell [1985] QB 210, [1984] 2 All ER 585 (CA). It is unnecessary to find a concluded and binding contract between the parties antecedent to the agreement which it is sought to rectify; it is sufficient to find a common continuing intention in regard to a particular provision or aspect of the agreement: Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 1 All ER 1213, 2 QB 86 (CA); Fook Kwok Investment Co Ltd v Chan Ying Lun [1980] 1 HKC 411. Rectification may be an appropriate remedy if the parties addressed their minds to, and were under a common mistake as to, the legal effect of a provision in a deed: Rafsanjan Pistachio Producers Co-operative v Reiss [1990] BCLC 352. Where the mistake is unilateral, rectification will not usually be available, but the parties may be restored to their original position by rescission of the contract (Laimond Property Investment Co Ltd v Arlington Park Mansions Ltd [1989] 1 EGLR 208 (CA)), although the defendant may elect to have rectification (Paget v Marshall (1884) 28 Ch D 255). Documents which the court may rectify in a proper case include appointments (Wilkinson v Nelson (1861) 9 WR 393, 7 Jur NS 480), bonds (Simpson v Vaughan (1739) 2 Atk 31), bills of exchange (Druiff v Lord Parker (1868) LR 5 Eq 131), bought and sold notes (Caraman, Rowley and May v Aperghis [1923] 17 Ll L Rep 183), schedules of quantities (Neill v Midland Rly Co (1869) 20 LT 864, 17 WR 871), insurance policies (Motteux v London Assurance (Governor and Co) (1739) 1 Atk 545) and, by statute, wills (Wills Ordinance (Cap 30) s 23A(1)). See also Common mistake; Mutual mistake; Rescission; Unilateral mistake. 牽涉改變文件的衡平法補救，以完全及正確地紀錄所有當事人原本意圖的協議條款：Thames Guaranty Ltd v Campbell [1985] QB 210，[1984] 2 All ER 585（英國上訴法院）。無須裁斷當事人之間在謀求改正的協議之前是否有有定論及有約束力的合約； 就協議的特別條文或方面裁斷是否有共同持續的意圖已足夠：Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 1 All ER 1213，2 QB 86（英國上訴法院）；Fook Kwok Investment Co Ltd v Chan Ying Lun [1980] HKC 411。如有關的當事人的思維傾注於契據條文的法律效力，及對此有共同的錯誤，改正可能是適當的補救：Rafsanjan Pistachio Producers Co-operative v Reiss [1990] BCLC 352。如有單方錯誤，通常不可得到改正，但儘管被告可選擇改正 (Paget v Marshall (1884) 28 Ch D 255) ，有關的當事人可以撤銷合約以恢復至原本的位置 (Laimond Property Investment Co Ltd v Arlington Park Mansions Ltd [1989] 1 EGLR 208 （英國上訴法院）)。法院在適當的案件可改正的文件包括配備 (Wilkinson v Nelson (1861) 7 Jur NS 480) ，擔保 (Simpson v Vaughan (1739) 2 Atk 31) ，匯票 (Druiff v Lord Parker (1868) LR 5 Eq 131) ，買賣的紙幣 (Caraman, Rowley and May v Aperghis (1923) 40 TLR 124) ，數量表 (Neill v Midland Rly Co (1869) 20 LT 864， 17 WR 871) ，保單 (Motteux v London Assurance (Governor and Co) (1739) 1 Atk 545)及法例，遺囑（《遺囑條例》（第 30章）第23A(1)條）。另見 Common mistake; Mutual mistake; Rescission; Unilateral mistake.n. |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。