No oral modification clauses: Autonomy, certainty or presumption?

• Main Author: LAU, Kwan Ho
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2022
• Subjects: Asian Studies; Commercial Law; Contracts
• 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
• Institution: Singapore Management University

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.