The parties had contracted to provide and occupy office space, but later purported to agree an oral variation of the written payment schedule. The supplier then sought to enforce the written agreement saying that the contract contained a clause to the effect that it could not be varied unless in writing and signed. It was also argued that an extension of time for payment was without consideration.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The variation was supported by consideration, but the oral agreement to revise the schedule of payments also amounted to an agreement to dispense with the clause. MWB were bound by the variation and were not entitled to claim the arrears at the time when they did.
Arden, Kitchin, McCombe LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 553, [2016] WLR(D) 330, [2017] QB 604, [2016] L and TR 27, [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 391, [2016] 3 WLR 1519
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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.566024
