dls wrote:The case deals with a situation whee it is not possible to identify who is the intended party to a contract. Read that as 'misnamed and not possible to identify'. In the vast majority of situations other means will be available to identify the party.
The court was pointing indeed to the lack of need for the full equitable remedy of rectification. He was saying that a simple error can be just deemed corrected.
You are managing to find here an intention to mislead. That can certainly happen, and may indeed be a source of criticism from the judge, but such an intention cannot generally be drawn from the addition of a name to create a trading name.
It was possible to identify that Sarah Lewis was a party to the agreement from all the available evidence which included HMRC letters to Sarah Lewis in which it was stated she was trading as "Sarah Lewis Company" as well as previous communications between Miss Lewis and the Counter-Party.
I brought this case here perhaps it could help someone in the future.