Publication Type
Transcript
Version
acceptedVersion
Publication Date
1-2022
Abstract
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.
Discipline
Asian Studies | Commercial Law | Contracts
Research Areas
Corporate, Finance and Securities Law
Publication
Cambridge Law Journal
Volume
80
Issue
3
First Page
443
Last Page
446
ISSN
0008-1973
Identifier
10.1017/S0008197321000945
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Citation
LAU, Kwan Ho.
No oral modification clauses: Autonomy, certainty or presumption?. (2022). Cambridge Law Journal. 80, (3), 443-446.
Available at: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3728
Copyright Owner and License
Authors
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Additional URL
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197321000945
Included in
Asian Studies Commons, Commercial Law Commons, Contracts Commons