Sanctity of Oral Agreements: MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd

Akhileshwar Pathak
{"title":"Sanctity of Oral Agreements: MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd","authors":"Akhileshwar Pathak","doi":"10.4135/9781529772807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The founding principle of contracts is the freedom of the parties. The parties are free to choose their terms and follow any modality of communication, oral or written. As they can freely make a contract, they can freely modify or unmake it. Written contracts have a clause, No Oral Modification Clause (NOM Clause), precluding oral modifications of the contract. Irrespective of it, business persons make oral agreements modifying the contract, and later, dispute its validity. If the parties are free to contract, why should the oral agreement not be binding? In a NOM Clause then, ineffective? The United Kingdom Supreme Court, in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd, explores this fundamental question on contract law.","PeriodicalId":433867,"journal":{"name":"Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad","volume":"206 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529772807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The founding principle of contracts is the freedom of the parties. The parties are free to choose their terms and follow any modality of communication, oral or written. As they can freely make a contract, they can freely modify or unmake it. Written contracts have a clause, No Oral Modification Clause (NOM Clause), precluding oral modifications of the contract. Irrespective of it, business persons make oral agreements modifying the contract, and later, dispute its validity. If the parties are free to contract, why should the oral agreement not be binding? In a NOM Clause then, ineffective? The United Kingdom Supreme Court, in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd, explores this fundamental question on contract law.
口头协议的神圣性:MWB 商务交流中心有限公司诉 Rock 广告有限公司
合同的基本原则是当事人的自由。当事人可自由选择条款,并采用任何口头或书面交流方式。既然可以自由订立合同,就可以自由修改或解除合同。书面合同中有一项条款,即禁止口头修改条款(NOM 条款),禁止口头修改合同。尽管如此,商人们还是会通过口头协议来修改合同,并在之后对合同的有效性提出异议。既然双方可以自由订立合同,为什么口头协议不具有约束力呢?那么,在 NOM 条款中,是否无效呢?英国最高法院在 MWB 商务交流中心有限公司诉 Rock 广告有限公司一案中探讨了合同法的这一基本问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信