Skip to main content

News story

August 28, 2018

Oral modification of contracts

In a recent seminal case, the Supreme Court held that a “no oral modification” clause was legally effective

In Rock Advertising Ltd vs MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd, the Supreme Court finally settled the question of whether a “no oral modification” clause, known as a NOM clause, could prevent an oral modification to a contract.

Rock Advertising had entered into a license with MWB to occupy offices in London for a fixed term of 12 months. Subsequently, Rock Advertising fell into arrears with the license fees and proposed a revised schedule of payments to MWB. There followed a telephone call between the parties in which Rock Advertising argued that MWB agreed to vary the terms of the contract, which MWB denied. Consequently, MWB locked Rock Advertising out of the premises for failure to pay the arrears. However, Rock Advertising counterclaimed damages for wrongful exclusion from the premises.

The case therefore turned on whether the variation agreement was effective in law.

Previously, the Court of Appeal had found that the oral agreement to vary the payments was valid and amounted to an agreement to dispense with the NOM clause. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, upholding the trial judge’s decision that a NOM clause was effective.

The Supreme Court held that the law gave effect to contractual provisions requiring specified formalities to be observed for a variation, and to do otherwise would be to override the parties’ intentions.

The Supreme Court’s decision therefore provides certainty to contracting parties as it clarifies the law in relation to NOM clauses. This is good news for the enforceability of NOM clauses and comes as a welcome decision as there are legitimate commercial reasons for using NOM clauses, such as:

  • they can avoid disputes regarding whether a variation had been intended;
  • they can prevent attempts to challenge written agreements by informal means;
  • they provide formality in recording variations; and
  • they make it easier for companies to police internal rules restricting the authority to agree to them.

If parties wish to amend an agreement, it is important for them to follow the formal procedures set out in the contract to vary its terms. While establishing that NOM clauses are effective, this decision also recognises that they carry the risk that a party may act on the contract as varied orally. Therefore, it is essential that legal advice is sought before varying any contract, whether orally or otherwise.

Speak to Veronica Hartley for more information.

Note: This article is not legal advice; it provides information of general interest about current legal issues.

Stay in touch

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay in touch

By completing your details and submitting this form you confirm you are happy for us to send you marketing communications and that you agree to our Website Privacy Policy and Legal Notice and to us using Mailchimp to process your data.


Sending

News/Insight

  • Why is clear contract drafting important?
    How simple contract clauses can protect your business.


    Read more
  • Ensuring equality: A legal guide to responsibilities and compliance
    Understanding equal opportunities in the workplace


    Read more
  • Navigating the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023: What it means for your business
    The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (the Act) represents a significant shift in the UK's approach to combating economic crime, improving corporate transparency, and anti-mo


    Read more
  • Blowing kisses, not boundaries
    Tribunal clears air on workplace etiquette.


    Read more
  • Estate planning: How not to make mincemeat of it!
    The High Court has confirmed that a will handwritten on the back of two cardboard food packages is legally binding.


    Read more

What they say...

  • Leann Paris, March 2025
    “From the beginning to the end, the support we have received throughout the case with all the staff members has been far more than we expected, we got kept up to date with every single matter, I have had stressful few years but Charlotte and he

  • C Smith, March 2025
    “As executor of a will it was a relief for a solicitor to act on my behalf as though no disputes it was still a lengthy and complex process. It was dealt with mostly by Charlotte B. who kept me informed at all times. She explained the process c

  • Marc, March 2025
    “RIAA Barker Gillette were engaged to handle a real estate transaction with unusual circumstances. As a non-UK resident unfamiliar with English conveyancing procedures, I felt completely satisfied with the depth of the information and explanati

  • Leigh, March 2025
    “Instructed Martin on my first property purchase. He was a delight to work with, kept me informed and updated regularly. It was an incredibly smooth and quick process. Couldn’t be happier.”

  • Ms Brownell, March 2025
    “Patrick was amazing from start to finish. He made the process so easy, and explained each step in detail ahead of time so I’d understand what would happen and when. He was incredibly organized and noted every detail, calling out things t

Read more
Send this to a friend