https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98660 A contract for the sale of land was not void merely because the vendor was inaccurately named as a non-existent company. The court read the memorandum with the surrounding circumstances and held that the company could be identified with certainty from its name, registered office, agent, business address, local trading name, and ownership of the property. The misdescription did not negate consensus or prevent title from being made, so rectification was unnecessary. The plaintiff company was treated as the contracting vendor and was entitled to specific performance. en-us Mon, 07 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:13:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98660 A contract for the sale of land was not void merely because the vendor was inaccurately named as a non-existent company. The court read the memorandum with the surrounding circumstances and held that the company could be identified with certainty from its name, registered office, agent, business address, local trading name, and ownership of the property. The misdescription did not negate consensus or prevent title from being made, so rectification was unnecessary. The plaintiff company was treated as the contracting vendor and was entitled to specific performance. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 07 Jul 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98660