Quite a lot actually. The case of Liberty Mercian v Cuddy contains enough legal principles to wax lyrical over until the cows come home. This blog focuses on the very important issue of ensuring that you are in contract with the correct legal entity. Liberty Mercian were developing a new store for Sainsbury’s with the “Cuddy Group” carrying out enabling works. Liberty Mercian purported to terminate the contract and then brought proceedings demanding delivery of a parent company guarantee, a performance bond and deeds of warranty. The case took a different turn when Liberty Mercian realised that it had entered into contract with Cuddy Civil Engineering Limited, a dormant company with no assets. Liberty Mercian amended its pleadings to contend that Cuddy Demolition and Dismantling Limited was or should have be the contracting party instead. The case ploughed through a plethora of legal principles used by Liberty Mercian in its attempt to persuade the court of its case: misnomer, common mistake, mutual mistake, rectification, estoppel and specific performance, no stone was left unturned. However the judge dismissed Liberty Mercian’s case, save for that of specific performance, which is a story for another blog. So the moral of the story? Always check the identity of the company you are looking to enter into a contract with. Is it the company which is sending you invoices or on the other hand is paying your invoices, is it actually trading? You have been warned.