in the sub-contract which stated, “if there is any inconsistency between the Sub-Contract Documents (other than the Numbered Documents) and the Numbered Documents […] those Sub-Contract Documents shall prevail”. E.ON argued that the ground conditions clauses quoted above had priority over the tender documents relied on by CDL. Ground conditions not included The court agreed that the scope of the "Sub-Contract Works" was to be judged by reference to the tender documents appended to the sub-contract. Accordingly, CDL's initial scope of works "did not include the matters that were specifically excluded by them from their scope of works as set out in their tender submissions …”. The ground conditions clauses in the contract applied to CDL's agreed scope of works and did not have the effect of extending that scope. These clauses could not be interpreted as a warranty by CDL that it had satisfied itself that obstructions or other ground conditions risks would not arise or that it agreed to bear the risk of such conditions. That, "would have the effect that clause 2.1.7 allocated to CDL the risk of carrying out work which CDL had expressly excluded from the Sub-Contract Works: it would have the effect of meaning that CDL had satisfied themselves in respect of the site for the purposes of carrying out works that were not part of the Sub-Contract Works. And that would not make sense." An alternative claim by CDL for rectification was dismissed by the court on the basis that there was no common mistake between the parties. Although E.ON was aware that CDL had intended to exclude ground conditions risk from the scope of works, E.ON genuinely believed that they had allocated these risks to CDL through the bespoke amendments to the contract conditions quoted above.