Joscelyne v Nissen  2 QB 86
A father and daughter agreed that the father’s business be transferred to the daughter if she agreed to pay all the expenses of his home, including gas and electricity. This oral agreement was later reduced into writing which contained the clause “[The defendant] shall discharge all expenses in connection with the whole premises . . . and shall indemnify [the plaintiff] from and against any claim arising in respect of the same.” When their relationship turned sour, the daughter refused to continue with the payments and contended that the written agreement did not require her to pay the household expenses. The father sued for a declaration that she is required to do so, and for a rectification of the written agreement to contain a clause that she is required to pay the expenses.
At the trial court, it was held that the written contract should be rectified to require the daughter pay for the expenses. She appealed.
1. Whether or not the written contract should be rectified to require the daughter to pay for household expenses.
1. That the written contract should be rectified to require the daughter to pay for household expenses.
When the parties decided to have a written contract, they did so with the intention that the daughter would pay for the household expenses. The court also believed that the parties negotiated their contract with the same intention of the daughter paying for household expenses. Consequently, the rectification and declaration were granted to capture the intention of the parties.