82,891
edits
Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd: Difference between revisions
Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd (view source)
Revision as of 13:23, 18 May 2018
, 18 May 2018no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} [2018] UKSC 24] ([https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0152.html transcript]) Brand new nonsense from the learned souls in the Supreme Court. | {{casenote|Rock Advertising Limited|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} [2018] UKSC 24] ([https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0152.html transcript]) | ||
Dealt with two fundamental issues one would like to think were well and truly settled law before now. Still. | |||
#Whether a contractual term that an agreement may not be amended save in writing signed on behalf of the parties is legally effective. | |||
#Whether an amendment whose sole effect is to vary a contract to pay money by substituting an obligation to pay less money is supported by [[consideration]]. | |||
===[[No oral modification]] clauses=== | |||
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 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? | 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? | ||
| Line 6: | Line 14: | ||
{{rock advertising}} | {{rock advertising}} | ||
===[[Consideration]] for [[amendment|amendments]]=== | |||
Lord Sumption ducked this one, by giving a bad decision on [[NOM]]s. | |||
:“That makes it unnecessary to deal with consideration. It is also, I think, undesirable to do so.The issue is a difficult one. The only consideration which MWB can be said to have been given for accepting a less advantageous schedule of payments was (i) the prospect that the payments were more likely to be made if they were loaded onto the back end of the contract term, and (ii) the fact that MWB would be less likely to have the premises left vacant on its hands while it sought a new licensee. These were both expectations of practical value, but neither was a contractual entitlement.” | |||
{{seealso}} | {{seealso}} | ||