Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd: Difference between revisions

Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd (view source)

217 bytes added , 18 May 2018

no edit summary

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Brand new nonsense from the learned souls in the Supreme Court. This time, concerning [[no oral modification]] clauses — hitherto understood by all to be harmless fluff injected into the boiler plate by unthinking clerks, and understood by all (including the Court of Appeal) to carry no forensic content at all, wherein parties — and let’s be honest here, it’s really just their lawyers — vainly purport to require amendments to be documented in a written agreement.
+Brand new nonsense from the learned souls in the Supreme Court.
-Not so vain after all, it seems:
+This time, concerning [[no oral modification]] clauses — hitherto understood by all to be harmless fluff injected into the boilerplate by [[Mediocre lawyer|unthinking clerks]], and understood by all (including the Court of Appeal) to carry no forensic content at all, wherein parties — and let’s be honest here, it’s really just their lawyers — vainly purport to require amendments to be documented in a written agreement. For who else would benefit from such a tiresome formal stricture?
+Anyway, the Supreme Court went into Law Society shop steward mode:
 {{rock advertising}}
+{{seealso}}
+*{{Casenote|Greenclose|National Westminster Bank plc}} for similar curial nonsense.
 {{ref}}