Vol 16 (2019) - Issue 1

Article preview

Rock Advertising Limited v MWB Business Exchange Centres Limited [2018] UKSC 24

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has held that a contractual term prohibiting parties from varying a contract unless in writing and signed by the parties (a 'No Oral Modification' or NOM clause) is legally effective. Despite the fact that NOM clauses are common “boilerplate” in commercial contracts, until now there has been little caselaw directly on the efficacy of such clauses. The Supreme Court has provided reassurance that NOM clauses will be upheld by courts; however, the differing reasoning applied under the two judgments may leave some questions as to whether there are limited circumstances in which NOM clauses are less effective.