Template:Rock advertising: Difference between revisions

Template:Rock advertising (view source)

Revision as of 09:03, 24 November 2019

61 bytes added , 24 November 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

83,242

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} concerned a non-oral modification clause.
-Rock Advertising Ltd rented serviced office space from MWB. being a fledgling company, it struggled to make ends meet and became significantly behind in its licence payments to MWB. Rock proposed a rescheduled series of licence payments which, when accrued interest was considered, would amount to less overall money being paid to MWB than was agreed in the contract. A credit officer at MWB agreed the variation over the phone, but then her line manager rejected that. MWB locked Rock Advertising Limited out of the premises.
+Rock Advertising Ltd rented serviced office space from MWB. It struggled to make ends meet. It fell behind in its licence payments to MWB.
-Rock sued, citing a binding amendment to the licence agreement. MW be offended citing a no oral modification clause in the licence agreement which meant the the oral conversation between the credit officer and rock did not amend the contract.
+Rock proposed rescheduled licence payments which would mean it would pay less overall to MWB than it had agreed to agreed in the original contract. A credit officer at MWB agreed the reschedule over the phone, but subsequently her line manager rejected it. MWB terminated the lease, locked the Rock out and put its feet up.<ref>A weak Lay-Z-Boy gag, I admit. {{hawf}}</ref>
-Anxious to avoid addressing the “difficult” question of whether a unilateral reduction in the net value of Rock’s payment obligations was accompanied by [[consideration]], the supreme court focused squarely on the [[no oral modification]] clause.
+Rock sued, citing the binding [[amendment]] to the licence agreement. MWB defended citing a [[no oral modification]] clause in the licence agreement which, it contended, meant the the oral conversation between the credit officer and Rock was not an effective [[amendment]] because it was not [[in writing]].
+Anxious to avoid addressing the “difficult” question of whether a unilateral reduction in the net value of Rock’s payment obligations could be said to be accompanied by [[consideration]], the court focused squarely on the [[no oral modification]] clause.
 Could it really work? Surely, contracting merchants are sovereign: they must be free to vary their affairs in a way the [[common law]]. If the evidence is clear that they agree, and there is consideration, it doesn't matter ''how'' they agree. Could contracting parties really double-entrench themselves?