How a typo destroyed 124-year-old company Taylor & Sons



Picture Source: 105 Typo Error Photos - Free & Royalty-Free Stock Photos from Dreamstime


 NEVER underestimate the importance of a single letter. In this case, an ‘s’.


A 124-year-old family business went kaput within two months because of a typo on a government register. Really, you can’t make this stuff up.


Welsh engineers Taylor & Sons, which was established in 1875, got a shock in February 2009 when Companies House, the UK government’s registrar of companies, recorded the company as having gone bust.


It hadn’t.


But Taylor & Son had. Note the difference — one had an ‘s’ and the other didn’t. The Telegraph in the UK, reported that while the mistake was caught and corrected three days later, it had done irreparable damage to Taylor & Sons, the business that was still kicking at the time.


Now, a former owner of Taylor & Sons has successfully sued the government, which he says destroyed the business with incorrect spelling.


Yesterday, the British High Court found the government liable for the demise of the business, which could leave taxpayers with a £9 million ($17.2 million) legal bill.


Even though the mistake had been corrected, the false information had already been onsold to other organisations, including credit lenders, which tend not to give money to companies that have been listed as in liquidation.


“We lost all our credibility as all our suppliers thought we were in liquidation. It was like a snowball effect,” former managing director and co-owner Philip Davison-Sebry said. “I was on holiday in the Maldives when I got a message to urgently contact Corus, one of our major clients. They said they weren’t happy at all I was on holiday at a time like this.


“They said we were in liquidation and that the credit agencies had told them. I rang the office to find out what was going on — it was like Armageddon.”


Despite pleas with its clients and suppliers that it was a case of mistaken identity, it was too late. The damage done to Taylor & Sons included losing its best customer, Tata Steel, which was worth £400,000 a month, as well as a potential £3 million pound contract with the Royal National Lifeboat Institute.


At the time of the mistake by the government, Taylor & Sons had employed 250 people. Two months after the typo, it went into administration.

Leading Questions

1. The article starts with a case of single letter 's'. What is the language issue here?

The language issue here is a typo. While typing we underestimate the importance of a single letter 's'. Its effect can have a negative impact. 

2. What had gone wrong? What was the business impact?

The UK government's register of companies recorded the company recorded Taylor & Sons had gone bust but in fact, it was Taylor & Son who had gone bust. Due to the slight error in tying destroyed the company's reputation. The typo did irreparable damage to Taylor & Sons.

3. Who was responsible for the error?

The UK government's register of companies was responsible for the error.

4. What legal case was made? Who won the case? Why?

A former owner of Taylor & Sons has successfully sued the government, the government had destroyed the business with incorrect spelling. The owner of the company won the case because the British High Court found the government liable for the demise of the business, which could leave taxpayers with a £9 million ($17.2 million) legal bill. 

5. What is the implication of this case for the business companies? What about for the government authorities?

The case implies that business companies shouldn't underestimate the importance of any letter. A simple mistake can be so expensive as a simple typo managed to destroy a 124-year- old business within two months. Hence, proofreading is very important. The government's failure to recognize the difference between Taylor & Sons and Taylor & Son cause the demise of a business. They are fully liable for the damage. They had to compensate the loss due to slight spelling error. It a lesson for them as well to do the proofreading.


Comments