Charles Russell Speechlys comments on Supreme Court decision which may curtail flexibility of contracts used by small businesses and consumers
Charles Russell Speechlys today (16 May) commented on the Supreme Court’s judgment in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd.
The case examines whether a contract can be varied informally by the parties even where the contract says that oral variations are not permitted. In a decision which may be welcomed as having avoided the floodgates to uncertainty – but perhaps unnecessarily curtailing contracting parties’ flexibility - the Supreme Court has allowed MWB’s appeal and refused to allow the “no oral modification” clause (or “NOM” clause) to be ignored.
Although the case concerned a property licence agreement, it has wide ramifications for all types of contracts – and not just those made between commercial parties. Small businesses and consumers in particular should look out for this seemingly innocuous clause, which they might otherwise overlook.
Emma Humphreys, property litigation partner, says:
“The Supreme Court has avoided opening the floodgates to uncertainty by ensuring that people entering into a contract of any sort have a good level of assurance about their contractual relations, recognising that they can still follow the route required by the contract to achieve a variation and that there are other legal rules in place (such as estoppel) which protect them from broken promises.
“This Supreme Court decision is a welcome clarification of the law in this area and gives real meaning and support to “no oral modification” clauses within contracts. Although some will be concerned that it is too restrictive of parties’ contractual freedom and that commercial relations require greater flexibility when it comes to varying arrangements, any finding that the “no oral modification” clause was ineffective would have created the potential for significant uncertainty for contracting parties and those advising them.
“There may be concern arising from this judgment for those who agree to vary arrangements in good faith and subsequently find the other party trying to avoid the revised agreement on the basis of a ““no oral modification” clause. However, the Supreme Court recognised this and emphasised that the principle of estoppel still has a role to play in safeguarding against injustice in such situations.”
Tanya Wilkie, commercial lawyer, comments:
“This interesting decision confirms that relying on a spoken agreement to vary the terms of a contract may not be enough if the contract contains a “no oral modification” clause. Small businesses and consumers in particular should look out for this seemingly innocuous clause, which they might otherwise overlook.
“Even if the other party appears amenable and cooperative to changing the terms of the contract informally, it is important to double check the procedure set out in the contract as to how it can be varied as it may require the agreed position to be in writing and signed by the parties.
“In this case, the parties could have chosen to formally remove the “no oral modification” clause, allowing them the freedom going forward to vary the terms of the deal with nothing more than a spoken agreement. However, with such freedom would come added uncertainty.
“It does not seek to take emphasis away from the notion of party autonomy, but rather to place focus on the actual wording agreed in a contract. This is an important reminder to follow formal procedures in a contract to effectively vary the terms of the deal.
“This decision comes as a welcome clarification of the ways in which parties can agree to change the terms of their contracts.”
Our thinking
Richard Flenley
Building Safety Fund has re-opened for applications
Hannah Turner
Q&A: Tackling technicalities and typos
Our experts answer a landlord’s query about the validity of a section 21 notice
Hope Barton
Q&A: The qualifying criteria explained
What do landlords need to prove to satisfy ground (g) of section 30(1) of the 1954 Act for the purposes of a new tenancy?
Samuel Lear
Samuel Lear answers the EG Legal Q&A on code rights
Q&A: Code rights queries answered
Chris Haywood
Chris Haywood writes for The Oath on the impact of Dubai's new Virtual Asset Law on NFTs and the metaverse
A future-ready framework?
Emma Preece
EG quotes Emma Preece on the Cine-UK and Cineworld Court of Appeal Covid rent arrears ruling
“This appeal was always going to be an uphill battle for the tenants.”
Darren Bailey
The Financial Times quotes Darren Bailey on the European Super League and the landmark case at the ECJ
“A win for the clubs may well lead to a far more fragmented football landscape"
Nic Couchman
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Fresh Air Festival on the Bangkok Century Cup 2022
Charles Russell Speechlys advises Fresh Air Festival on the Bangkok Century Cup 2022
Emma Humphreys
And the Award goes to...? First decisions published under pandemic arrears scheme
The first Awards under the binding arbitration scheme introduced by the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022 have been published.
Rudy Capildeo
Art Net quotes Rudy Capildeo on a new legislative change re: criminal damage to memorials
“A political judgement appears to be being placed on the content of the graffiti rather than the act of vandalism itself.”
Emma Humphreys
Property Week quotes Emma Humphreys on the Electronic Communications Code
Judgment on telephone masts clarifies the rights of landowners
Emma Humphreys
Property Patter: Mythbusters
The Real Estate Disputes Team takes a look at some common myths or misunderstandings when it comes to property.
Darren Bailey
City AM quotes Darren Bailey on the European Super League and the upcoming hearing at the ECJ
“The ramifications of the ECJ judgment for the future shape of football… cannot be underestimated".
Paul Stone
Paul Stone provides comment for City AM on the EU’s stamp of approval for digital laws
EU’s stamp of approval for digital laws risks putting the UK behind
Paul Stone
City AM quotes Paul Stone on the CMA's investigation into Amazon
"The latest UK investigation looks like a “carbon copy” of its European counterparts"
Laura Bushaway
The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022: Landlords and developers beware serious sanctions for non-compliance
The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 received Royal Assent on 8 February 2022 and will come into force on 30 June 2022.
Emma Preece
EG quotes Emma Preece on the Picturehouse and BNY Mellon rent arrears cases
“The case is being closely watched by landlords and tenants alike as the impact of the pandemic lives on in the commercial property sector”
Natalie Batra
ITV takes the plunge and “couples up” with Ebay to dress love island contestants in pre-loved clothing
Samuel Lear
Property Patter: Reasonable Endeavours
What does it mean to use ‘best’, ‘all’ or ‘reasonable’ endeavours?
Grégoire Uldry
New Swiss succession law on the transfer of businesses
On 10 June 2022, the Federal Council adopted its Message amending the Civil Code on the transfer of businesses by succession.