Pukallus v Cameron

From Uni Study Guides
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation: Pakallus v Cameron (1982) 180 CLR 447

This information can be found in the Casebook: Paterson, Robertson & Duke, Contract: Cases and Materials (Lawbook Co, 11th ed, 2009), pp. 788-90 [31.120] or here.


Background facts

  • The Plaintiff [Pukallus, purchaser] was buying land off the Defendant [Cameron, vendor]
  • The contract specified he is buying Subdivision 1 - both parties mistakenly believed Subdivision 1 included some other land which was actually a part of Subdivision 2.
  • When this was discovered, the Plaintiff sought to rectify the contract to include the rest of the land he originally contracted for.

Legal issues


  • Rectification can occur where:
    1. There is "an intention common to both parties at the time of contract to include in their bargain a term which by mutual mistake is omitted therefrom."[1]
    2. The plaintiff advances "'convincing proof' that the written contract does not embody the final intention of the parties. The omitted ingredient must be capable of such proof in clear and precise terms"[2]
  • In this case, the Plaintiff fails to show that it was the intention of the parties to sell contract for the other area as well - rather, the intention of the parties was to contract for Subdivision 1.
  • The fact that he mistakenly thought there is more land on it (even if so did the vendor) is his fault. The purchaser has a responsibility.
  • The Plaintiff fails.


  1. (1982) 180 CLR 447, 452
  2. (1982) 180 CLR 447, 452
Personal tools