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 15:26, 3 December 2018

525 bytes added , 3 December 2018

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+[[Unless otherwise agreed in writing|Unless otherwise agreed ''in writing'']] is not as meaningless as [[unless otherwise agreed]].
 {{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.
+In which the Supreme Court dealt unsatisfactorily with two basic issues one would like to think were well and truly settled law before now, getting one wrong (in your humble correspondent’s unworthy opinion) and deciding therefore that it did not need to answer the other. The issues were:
-#Whether a contractual term that an agreement may not be amended save in writing signed on behalf of the parties is legally effective.
+#Whether a contractual term that an agreement may only be amended in writing signed by the parties prevents parties effectively amending the contract orally, by morse code or by winking at each other<ref>Neither Morse code nor winking are strictly part of the ''[[ratio decidendi]]'' but I maintain they are implied.</ref>;
-#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]].
+#Whether an amendment to substitute an obligation to pay a ''lot'' of money with 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.
+Brand new nonsense from the learned souls in the Supreme Court. [[NOM]], [[NOM]], [[NOM]].
 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?