MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd [2018] UKSC 24
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:17:31 UTC
KEY POINTS
- When parties agree on a “No Oral Modification” (NOM) clause, it does not mean that oral variations to the contract are forbidden.
- A NOM clause merely renders them invalid and such oral variations do not necessarily contravene the said clause.
FACTS
- Rock Advertising (“Rock”) entered into a licence agreement with MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd (“MWB”) to occupy one of the latter’s office spaces for a fixed term of 12 months.
- Their licence contained a “No Oral Modification” (NOM) clause which provides that any variations thereto must be made in writing and signed by the parties before they take effect.
- When Rock accumulated arrears of licence fees, it proposed a revised schedule of payments to MWB which consisted of the deferral of certain payments and the spreading of the arrears over the remaining licence term. In effect, the revised schedule was worth slightly less than the original terms.
- Rock claimed that MWB agreed to the revised schedule during a phone call which MWB denied.
Explore more about
MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd
COMMENTARY
- The rigid construction of NOM clauses is intended to prevent parties from undermining written agreements through informal means.
NOTES
- As the oral variation was deemed invalid, the Court found it unnecessary to deal with the issue on consideration.
- However, the lower courts – Central London County Court and Court of Appeal – both agreed that the variation in this particular case was supported by consideration in the form of “practical advantages to MWB."
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Wells v Devani
The absence of explicit agreement on a term does not automatically render the contract void due to uncertainty. If the parties have implicitly agreed on those terms, it will be sufficient for the con...
Marks and Spencer plc v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd
There was no implied term in this case. In order to include a term in the lease, there must be either clear evidence that the parties intended to include the term or a business necessity for that ter...
Daulia v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd
In this case potential purchasers alleged that they were told that if they could produce a bank draft for a certain amount of money by 10 am the following day, they could buy a property. When the pla...
Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd
It is the duty of the court to determine the true and objective meaning of the language that the parties have used to express their agreement. This is not simply a matter of looking at the exact word...
Re Pinewood Estate, Farnborough
Debate about whether a building scheme existed or annexation existed. The court said no to annexation seemingly on the basis that there was no express words doing so (Gardner. This weakens the idea o...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.