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.”
Online safety – 2022 begins with regulatory developments in both the UK and the EU
Last week saw developments within the UK and EU in their attempts to ensure online businesses do more to address illegal online content.
To flex or not to flex: comparing traditional offices with flexible office space
Is Buy Now, Pay Later creating a new debt crisis?
BNPL providers are quick to claim that their services are offered with “no interest and no fees”, but is this really the case?
Restrictive Covenants Declaration that a restrictive covenant is no longer enforceable
Emma Preece explores restrictive covenants.
Property Patter: What can the property world expect from Parliament and the courts in 2022
What’s ahead in the world of property law during 2022
Emma Humphreys writes for Estates Gazette on the use of alternative dispute resolution in property disputes
The difficulties with court proceedings are becoming more pronounced as the courts struggle to deal with their backlog of cases.
The changing leasehold landscape: Government consultation on reforming the leasehold and commonhold systems in England and Wales
Lauren Fraser and Laura Bushaway explore the changes occurring in the leasehold landscape process.
Social Tokens: What are the regulatory challenges in the UK?
Social tokens are one of the latest innovations in the crypto space and have grown significantly in recent years.
PRA to further scrutinise cloud computing in 2022
James Souter quoted by Estates Gazette on the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn the Gala Unity decision
Leaseholders who acquire the right to manage a building are not exempt from paying for shared services if part of a larger estate.
Laura Bushaway writes for the Estates Gazette Legal Q&A on property guardians and ASTs
Laura Bushaway considers property guardians and possession proceedings.
The green lease: back for good?
Emma Humphreys and Phil Webb look at the growing interest in green lease clauses.
National Security and Investment Act comes into force
The Act has established a new regime for the review of mergers, acquisitions and transactions that could threaten national security.
The pandemic’s 'depressing' impact – early signs of the courts’ approach to determining rent
Playing for time with lease expiry
Emma Humphreys explores time with lease expiry from the perspective of tenant and landlord.
The government’s Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill and revised Code of Practice
Emma and Laura explore the government's new Code of Practice for commercial property relationships.
Q&A: Timely guidance on service charges
Emma Preece and Brooke Lyne find that a recent Court of Appeal decision offers timely guidance on residential service charge matters.
Lauren Spark writes for the Estates Gazette Legal Q&A on rent review formula within leases
Lauren Spark considers a question on rent review formula within a lease.
Richard Davies and Rahim Hirji write for the American Bar Association on tattoos, athletes and image rights
LeBron James. Zlatan Ibrahimović. Mike Tyson. What is the common factor?
Q&A: Delving into the definitions of landlord’s fixtures
Rachel Morrish and Nick Grant answer a question on what amounts to a breach of covenant in relation to landlord’s fixtures.