No oral modification clauses: Autonomy, certainty or presumption?
By a judgment of Lord Sumption with which a majority of the court agreed, the Supreme Court in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd. v Rock Advertising Ltd. [2018] UKSC 24, [2019] A.C. 119 ruled that a contractual term which prescribed that the contract was not amendable save in writing signed by or on...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3728 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5686/viewcontent/NoOralModification_av.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | By a judgment of Lord Sumption with which a majority of the court agreed, the Supreme Court in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd. v Rock Advertising Ltd. [2018] UKSC 24, [2019] A.C. 119 ruled that a contractual term which prescribed that the contract was not amendable save in writing signed by or on behalf of the parties (a No Oral Modification or “NOM” clause) was effective to invalidate subsequent oral variations to the contract. Lord Burrows later suggested extrajudicially (in P.S. Davies and M. Raczynska (eds.), Contents of Commercial Contracts (London 2020), 49) that Rock Advertising might not find traction in other common law jurisdictions. The decision has now been considered for the first time by a Commonwealth apex court. Indications are that it will endure a mixed reception around the common law world. |
|---|