 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 185 Section 97 It refers to 'evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies'. It reads as follows: "97. When the language used applies partly to one set of existing facts, and partly to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two it was meant to apply". The illustration below Section 97 reads as follows: "A agrees to sell to B, 'my land at X in the occupation of Y'. A has land at X, but not in the occupation of Y, and he has land in the occupation of Y, but it is not at X. Evidence may be given of facts showing which he meant to sell." We agree with para 44.10 of the 69th Report that Section 97 does not require any amendment.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back