82,891
edits
Entire agreement clause: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{g}}A clause designed to buttress the time-honoured [[parol evidence]] rule, that if it is clear you meant to entirely reduce your agreement to writing, once you have done so the agreement, and no other extraneous evidence, will be the tribunal’s only guide to divining its intention. | {{g}}A clause designed to buttress the time-honoured [[parol evidence]] rule, that if it is clear you meant to entirely reduce your agreement to writing, once you have done so the agreement, and no other extraneous evidence, will be the tribunal’s only guide to divining its intention. | ||
Reduces a certain amount of uncertainty, certainly, but at what cost? | |||
Also a favourite “[[in your face]]” move of the kind of pedant you will inevitably encounter in a derivatives [[negotiation]]. Some been known to insert an [[entire agreement]] clause into an [[amendment agreement]]. No, you clot, by utter definition an amendment ''isn’t'' the entire agreement. | |||
But it creates a [[Mobius loop]]. For either your written agreement, on its face and by its own terms and in the parties’ shared expectation, ''is'' the final definitive record of your whole agreement “on the subject matter it purports to address” — now there’s some [[wieselspiele]] for the times — in which case, making a statement to that effect is superfluous, or it is not. Nothing you can write in the agreement will change that. | |||
A “classic” [[ | ===What’s in the box=== | ||
A “classic” [[entire agreement]] clause contains the following components of flannelry: | |||
*A statement that the document (and, ahh, anncillary documents it refers to — you can see the unfolding problem here right?), represents the totality of the bargain. | *A statement that the document (and, ahh, anncillary documents it refers to — you can see the unfolding problem here right?), represents the totality of the bargain. | ||
*A [[disclaimer]] of all prior [[representations]], intimations and innuendos that might otherwise have induced entry into the contract. | *A [[disclaimer]] of all prior [[representations]], intimations and innuendos that might otherwise have induced entry into the contract. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 14: | ||
*A final, emotional concession, to prove that your heart is not entirely made of stone, allowing that this clause won’t excuse your outright [[fraud]]. Not, of course, that any contractual term ''could'' immunise a party who seeks to rely on it from its own fraud. | *A final, emotional concession, to prove that your heart is not entirely made of stone, allowing that this clause won’t excuse your outright [[fraud]]. Not, of course, that any contractual term ''could'' immunise a party who seeks to rely on it from its own fraud. | ||
===Tricks for ''les joueurs jeunes''=== | |||
*Would an [[entire agreement]] clause prevent a court [[Implied term|implying terms]] to give a [[contract]] [[business efficacy]]? No, said the Court of Appeal, rejecting the fatuous claim of a landlord in {{cite|Hipwell|Szurek|2018|EWCA(Civ)|674}} that an [[entire agreement]] clause in a lease contract that didn’t mention electrical wiring meant it wasn’t responsible for the maintenance and repair of the wiring, which proceeded to administer the tenant and customers of her cafe periodic electric shocks.<ref>I am not sure if they did actually get shocks, but it is fun to imagine.</ref> | *Would an [[entire agreement]] clause prevent a court [[Implied term|implying terms]] to give a [[contract]] [[business efficacy]]? No, said the Court of Appeal, rejecting the fatuous claim of a landlord in {{cite|Hipwell|Szurek|2018|EWCA(Civ)|674}} that an [[entire agreement]] clause in a lease contract that didn’t mention electrical wiring meant it wasn’t responsible for the maintenance and repair of the wiring, which proceeded to administer the tenant and customers of her cafe periodic electric shocks.<ref>I am not sure if they did actually get shocks, but it is fun to imagine.</ref> | ||