John Chadwick QC said of a clause restricting a contract variation not in writing: ‘One can see why such a provision is included in a contract for the sale and purchase of land. All material terms of a contract for the sale of land must be evidenced by some memorandum in writing signed by the party to be charged – see section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Accordingly it is highly undesirable to have any scope for argument whether the written terms of a contract for sale of land do, in fact, constitute the entire contract.’
Section 3 has no application to an entire agreement clause provision defining where the contractual terms between the parties are to be found
John Chadwick QC
(1989) 57 P and CR 452, Times 22-Oct-1987
Law of Property Act 1925 40
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Rock Advertising Ltd v MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd SC 16-May-2018
The parties disputed whether a contract (licence to occupy an office) had been varied by an oral agreement, where the terms prohibited such.
Held: The ‘no oral variation’ clause applied. Such clauses were in common commercial use and served a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 July 2021; Ref: scu.666018 br>