Template:Rock advertising: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} concerned a non-oral modification clause. | {{Casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} concerned a non-oral modification clause. | ||
Rock Advertising Ltd rented serviced office space from MWB. | 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 | 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 | 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? | 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? |