Description
An engineering firm appealed against a decision on a preliminary issue that the director had employed them in a personal capacity rather than as agent for his company. Where the identity of a contracting party was unclear from a written contract it was legitimate for the court to consider what the parties had said to each other in the period leading up to the offer and acceptance and the correct approach was an objective one. If the extrinsic evidence established that a party had been misdescribed in a document the court could correct the error as a matter of construction without any need for formal rectification.
