In legal drafting and interpretation, this maxim means that if a document clearly identifies a person, property or obligation, an inconsistent or erroneous detail (for example, a wrong lot number or mis-stated middle name) can be ignored; the mistake does not invalidate the otherwise accurate description.
It is a common-law rule of construction developed in case law, not defined by statute. Courts apply it across contract interpretation, conveyancing and deeds, wills and trusts, and occasionally pleadings, to treat the offending words as surplusage where the remainder of the wording leaves the subject matter certain.
Key limits: it cannot be used to rewrite the parties’ bargain, contradict clear language, or rescue provisions that remain ambiguous once the false detail is removed. If the misdescription creates real uncertainty, the clause may fail or require admissible extrinsic evidence to identify the subject matter.
Usage and effect are broadly consistent across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. Practically, it allows instruments to stand despite a mistaken example or label, provided the true intention is ascertainable from the document read as a whole and, where permitted, its admissible context.