Contractual dispute — sale and purchase agreement — contractual mistake — same mistake — misdescription — compensation — Flight v Booth (1834) 131 ER 1160 — Property Ventures Investments Ltd v Regalwood Holdings Ltd [2010] NZSC 47 — Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, ss 24, 28 — Contractual Remedies Act 1979 — Contractual Mistakes Act 1977. The plaintiff sought judgment after entering a sale and purchase agreement with the defendant on a residential lot that mistakenly described the property as 643 square metres of land, when in fact it was 523 square metres. Upon discovering the error, the defendant informed the plaintiff, offering the plaintiff the option to cancel the contract; no time limit for acceptance was given. About one month later the plaintiff accepted the offer to cancel; this was rejected by the defendant without giving any reason. Following correspondence between the parties, during which the plaintiff reiterated their position that cancellation was preferred or alternatively seeking compensation, the defendant advised they would not cancel the contract because the plaintiff had not canceled the contract within a 5-day period. The 5-day-period was prescribed in a clause in the agreement related to variations to the scheme plan. The plaintiff, after consulting with the defendant, did attempt to on-sell the property, which was eventually sold by the defendant. The plaintiff was seeking the recovery of the deposit based on his acceptance on the offer to cancel or under the rule in Flight v Booth. The defendant claimed there was no valid cancellation or that the contract had been affirmed by the plaintiff's subsequent attempt to on-sell the property. The defendant counterclaimed for the difference between the resale purchase price and the contracted purchase price. The Judge found that the 5-day period only began once notice was given and as there was no evidence that the clause was ever bought into operation that the plaintiff's acceptance of the offer to cancel was wrongly rejected. Further, the decision to on-sell the property was found not to be an affirmation of the contract as it was not the plaintiff's intention to be bound by the contract. The right to cancel the contract arose from common law rather than the agreement for sale and purchase, following case law the Court found that the defendant was in breach of their obligation under the agreement to provide compensation for the misdescription. The Judge also noted that the plaintiff would have also succeeded under ss 24 and 28 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act, as the misstatement of the section's size was a material mistake of contract. The plaintiff was awarded judgment on the counterclaim and awarded the sum of $20,000, being the deposit in full, plus interest. Judgment Date: 16 November 2018.