Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / Blogs / Real Estate / 149: ‘No oral modification’ clauses are effective

The Supreme Court has held that a ‘no oral modification’ clause is legally effective. This type of clause prevents the terms of a written contract being varied orally, but the validity of such a clause was recently questioned by the Court of Appeal.

The no-oral modification clause in this case was contained in a licence granted from Rock Advertising to MWB Business Exchange permitting occupation of managed office space in Central London. The clause stated that ‘All variations to this Licence must be agreed, set out in writing and signed on behalf of both parties before they take effect’.

Rock was in arrears of the licence fee payable under the licence to occupy. It proposed a revised payment schedule to MWB and a discussion took place on the telephone between MWB’s credit controller and Rock’s managing director. Following the telephone call, Rock believed that the licence had been orally varied by the conversation and a different payment schedule for the licence fee had allegedly been agreed.

MWB disputed this variation of the licence terms and took the phone conversation to be only part of continuing negotiations. MWB terminated the licence, locked the premises to prevent Rock getting access and commenced proceedings for the outstanding arrears.

In a strange decision, the Court of Appeal had initially found that the oral agreement to vary the payments was valid and dispensed with the no-oral modification clause in the licence. The Supreme Court disagreed, upholding the trial judge’s decision that ‘no oral modification’ clauses are valid and effective. The licence could only be amended in writing.

This is the correct decision at law. No oral modification clauses are common in written contracts because:

  • they prevent attempts to undermine written agreements by informal means; and
  • they avoid disputes about whether a variation was intended and about its exact terms.

If you do wish to vary a contract then you should make sure you enter some form of written supplemental contract. You must also be careful not to inadvertently vary a contract or inadvertently enter into a contract through correspondence. This can be an issue in correspondence sent from a landlord to a tenant about an application for consent to assign, underlet or change use in a commercial lease, where unequivocal consent may be deemed to be given in an informal letter or email.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
4 Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron