fix: Rectify typographical inaccuracies

audit/README.md

@@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ Overall we consider the resulting contracts following the audit feedback period
 
 ### Disclaimer
 
-Our team uses our current understanding of the best practises for Solidity and Smart Contracts. Development in Solidity and for Blockchain is an emergering area of software engineering which still has a lot of room to grow, hence our current understanding of best practise may not find all of the issues in this code and design. 
+Our team uses our current understanding of the best practices for Solidity and Smart Contracts. Development in Solidity and for Blockchain is an emerging area of software engineering which still has a lot of room to grow, hence our current understanding of best practise may not find all of the issues in this code and design. 
 
 We have not analysed any of the assembly code generated by the Solidity compiler. We have not verified the deployment process and configurations of the contracts. We have only analysed the code outlined in the scope. We have not verified any of the claims made by any of the organisations behind this code. 
 

audit/dynamic-analysis.md

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
 
   Contract: Distribution Initialize
     ✓ Reserve should be less than total supply cap (67ms)
-    ✓ Distribution cap is a diffence between total supply cap and reserve (156ms)
+    ✓ Distribution cap is a difference between total supply cap and reserve (156ms)
     ✓ Token total supply should be 0 at the beginning of distribution (228ms)
 
   Contract: Distribution

audit/gas-consumption-report.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ performed by Blockchain Labs, February 27, 2018
 
   Contract: Distribution Initialize
     ✓ Reserve should be less than total supply cap (584964 gas)
-    ✓ Distribution cap is a diffence between total supply cap and reserve (1877243 gas)
+    ✓ Distribution cap is a difference between total supply cap and reserve (1877243 gas)
     ✓ Token total supply should be 0 at the beginning of distribution (4121541 gas)
 
   Contract: Distribution
@@ -103,4 +103,4 @@ performed by Blockchain Labs, February 27, 2018
 ## Summary  
 Upon finalization of the contracts to be used by **Mothership**, the contracts were assessed on the gas usage of each function to ensure there aren't any unforeseen issues with exceeding the block size GasLimit.
 
-<br>
+<br>

audit/static-analysis.md

@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ If the caller is the contract controller, the function simply forwards the call
 - When called by Controller
 	- it should call `doTransfer()` in any case
 - When called by Token holder
-	- it should fail if the the sender didn't allow to transfer requested amount
+	- it should fail if the sender didn't allow to transfer requested amount
 	- it should call `doTransfer()` if the transfer allowed
 
 

contracts/interface/ERC20Token.sol

@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ contract ERC20Token {
 
   /// @param _owner The address of the account owning tokens
   /// @param _spender The address of the account able to transfer the tokens
-  /// @return Amount of remaining tokens allowed to spent
+  /// @return Amount of remaining tokens allowed to be spent
   function allowance(address _owner, address _spender) public view returns (uint256 remaining);
 
   event Transfer(address indexed _from, address indexed _to, uint256 _value);

contracts/interface/MiniMeTokenI.sol

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ import "./Burnable.sol";
 
 
 /// @dev MiniMeToken interface. Using this interface instead of whole contracts
-///  will reduce contract sise and gas cost
+///  will reduce contract size and gas cost
 contract MiniMeTokenI is ERC20Token, Burnable {
 
   string public name;                //The Token's name: e.g. DigixDAO Tokens