UK Supreme Court Upholds "No Oral Modification Clauses," Affirms Written Contract Variations Requirement

JD
Jones Day

Contributor

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,500 lawyers across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
The recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited [2018] UKSC 24 highlights the need for strict observance of No Oral Modification clauses in agreements.
UK Corporate/Commercial Law
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited [2018] UKSC 24 highlights the need for strict observance of No Oral Modification clauses in agreements.

Ubiquitous across a variety of commercial agreements, No Oral Modification clauses require that variations to a contract adhere to certain formalities, including most typically that variations be in writing and signed by the parties. With few exceptions, there are no formality requirements for the validity of a simple commercial contract under English law. Against this backdrop, No Oral Modification clauses give rise to a conceptual challenge, pitting the parties' freedom to enter into binding agreements in any manner they deem appropriate against the need to give effect to binding contractual terms.

Writing for the Supreme Court in Rock, Lord Sumption noted that English case law was unsettled in this area. Looking to the Vienna Convention on Contractors for the International Sale of Goods (1980) (to which the United Kingdom is not a party) and the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (2016), however, the Court rejected the argument that there was an inconsistency between a general rule allowing contracts to be made informally and a specific rule requiring that variations be made in writing. "Party autonomy operates up to the point when the contract is made," Lord Sumption observed, "but thereafter only to the extent that the contract allows."

To the extent there may be relief from the formal requirements of a No Oral Modification Clause, obiter in Rock indicates that the safeguard against injustice lies in principles of estoppel.  Whilst estoppel defences were not before the Court, Lord Sumption cautioned that estoppel "cannot be so broad as to destroy the whole advantage of certainty" to which parties agree by adopting No Oral Modification clauses.  No Oral Modification clauses and exceptions will continue to be fought over where parties have not strictly complied with terms of such clauses.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More