The court considered the effect of an acknowledgement of non-reliance clause: ‘There are, as it seems to me, at least two good reasons why the courts should not refuse to give effect to an acknowledgement of non-reliance in a commercial contract between experienced parties of equal bargaining power a fortiori, where those parties have the benefit of professional advice. First, it is reasonable to assume that the parties desire commercial certainty. They want to order their affairs on the basis that the bargain between them can be found within the document which they have signed. They want to avoid the uncertainty of litigation based on allegations as to the content of oral discussions at pre-contractual meetings. Second, it is reasonable to assume that the price to be paid reflects the commercial risk which each party – or, more usually, the purchaser – is willing to accept. The risk is determined, in part at least, by the warranties which the vendor is prepared to give. The tighter the warranties, the less the risk and (in principle, at least) the greater the price the vendor will require and which the purchaser will be prepared to pay. It is legitimate, and commercially desirable, that both parties should be able to measure the risk, and agree the price, on the basis of the warranties which have been given and accepted.’
The court gave effect to a non-reliance clause in a contract.
Peter Gibson, Pill, Chadwick LJJ
 EWCA Civ 3029
England and Wales
Cited – Thomas Witter v TBP Industries Ltd ChD 15-Jul-1994
An award of damages for misrepresentation required that there had at some time been a right of rescission, not necessarily a continuing right to rescind.
An acknowledgement of non-reliance clause has become a common part of modern commercial . .
See Also – E A Grimstead and Son Limited v Francis McGarrigan CA 13-Oct-1998
Cited – Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd CA 6-Apr-2006
Moore-Bick LJ discussed whether the court should give effect to a non-reliance clause in a contract saying: ‘It is common to include in certain kinds of contracts an express acknowledgement by each of the parties that they have not been induced to . .
Cited – Morgan and Another v Pooley and Another QBD 7-Oct-2010
The claimants had bought a property from the defendants and now sought damages in misrepresentation saying that the defendants had failed to disclose a planning application for an adjacent farm as regards a track bordering the property.
Held: . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 February 2021; Ref: scu.346267