The applicant sought rectification and enforcement of an agreement for the purchase of internment rights in a cemetery development.
The respondent argued that the signed document was merely a memorandum of understanding and that a formal agreement subject to legal review had not yet been concluded, requiring the matter to proceed to trial.
The court examined the parties’ post‑execution conduct, including payment and acceptance of a deposit, commencement of due diligence, engagement of consultants, marketing of burial plots, and planning applications.
These actions demonstrated that both parties treated the May 13, 2014 document as the binding formal agreement.
The court held that references within the document to a future “formal agreement” were the result of mutual mistake and ordered rectification.
