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 13:14, 18 May 2018

15 bytes added , 18 May 2018

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

Revision as of 13:13, 18 May 2018 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 13:14, 18 May 2018 (view source) Amwelladmin (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{casenote\|Rock Advertising Limited\|MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited}} [https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2016-0152.html ~~[2018] UKSC 24~~] 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]) 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?