The consequences of technical errors in the contract, as a rule, do not have a decisive influence on its interpretation and execution. If these errors significantly distort the meaning of the agreement, then additional proof of the actual content of the terms on which the agreement was reached may be required.
Technical errors in contracts are not uncommon, however, they usually come to light only when considering a legal dispute related to the execution of the relevant agreement. If any errors of this kind are revealed by chance in the absence of contradictions between the parties to the contract, then they are usually corrected by mutual agreement, for which it is enough to conclude an additional agreement. In the overwhelming majority of cases, technical errors go unnoticed, since the parties do not read all the terms of the contract at the stage of its execution. The discovery of such errors can cause big problems in the event of a legal dispute, the subject of which directly follows from the content of the agreement.
What do they do when technical errors are detected in court?
Civil law contains clear instructions on the interpretation of the terms of any agreement. It is these norms that the courts adhere to when they find technical errors in the contract. In particular, the meaning of the contract will be established on the basis of its literal content. If a technical error makes the literal content unclear, then other terms of the contract are examined, with which the content of the unclear clause is compared. The general meaning of the concluded agreement and the direction of the will of the parties are also taken into account. That is why typographical errors, omissions of letters, words, signs, inconsistencies and other technical errors usually do not matter. Such inaccuracies, as a rule, are contained in all copies of the agreement, since they are allowed at the stage of computer typing of the agreement.
What to do if the meaning is significantly distorted?
Sometimes significant technical errors are found in the contract, which completely distort its semantic content. At the same time, the general meaning of the agreement or its other conditions do not allow to unambiguously establish the actual will of the parties to the agreement. A classic example of a technical error of this kind is the omission of the “not” particle or its excessive use when formulating the responsibilities of a party. In this case, the term of the contract can be given the exact opposite meaning, and it can be difficult to prove the existence of a technical error. In this case, the law requires the court to evaluate other evidence provided by the interested party. For example, preliminary correspondence between the parties, in which the basic terms of the controversial agreement were agreed, can provide assistance in interpreting the agreement.
