Boilerplate clauses

Boilerplate clauses

This subtopic focuses on boilerplate clauses in commercial business-to-business agreements. For information on commercial clauses more generally, see: Commercial clauses—overview.

For information on boilerplate in business-to-consumer contracts, see the section on ‘Consumer boilerplate’ below.

For information on boilerplate in public sector contracts, see the section on ‘Public sector boilerplate’ below.

The role of boilerplate

Lawyers work on a huge variety of transactions, but all of them will in some way involve written agreements. All of those agreements should contain some boilerplate clauses.

‘Boilerplate’ is the term used to describe the clauses that are included in an agreement to deal with the mechanics of how it works and those legal points that are relevant to most transactions. For further consideration of the role and importance of boilerplate clauses, see Practice Note: The role of boilerplate.

Boilerplate clauses are generally found at the beginning and the end of an agreement. Such clauses are often thought of as standard, miscellaneous provisions, but this is a very dangerous view to adopt. It is not unusual for a boilerplate clause to be the cause of litigation. Since a boilerplate clause

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Commercial News

Construction contracts by WhatsApp and invoices as payment applications (Jaevee v Fincham)

Construction analysis: In this Part 8 claim, the Technology and Construction C ourt (TCC) held that, while informal, the parties had entered a concluded contract by an exchange of WhatsApp messages. The essential terms had been agreed and other terms were not essential or would be implied. The court further held that three out of four invoices issued by the defendant were valid applications for payment, even where two of the invoices did not contain a mathematical breakdown of the sum due. In their context, the invoices were sufficiently clear and intended to be payment applications. Written by James Frampton, barrister at Keating Chambers, and Liam Hendry, senior associate at Archor LLP.

ASA rulings—30 April 2025

A complaint against Groupon International Ltd and Jaoyeh Trading Ltd regarding misleading price claims was considered by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ASA upheld the complaint.

Cabinet Office updates PPN 010: Procuring steel in government contracts

The Cabinet Office has updated Procurement Policy Note 010: Procuring steel in government contracts (PPN 010), which provides in-scope organisations with guidance on steel procurement in government projects under the Procurement Act 2023 (PA 2023). PPN 010 applies to central government departments, their executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies when awarding public contracts (as defined by PA 2023, s 3), other than special regime contracts (as defined by PA 2023, s 10(6)), where steel is being procured directly or indirectly (relevant steel procurement). Other contracting authorities are encouraged to consider applying the best practice set out in PPN 010, as appropriate, where they do not have equivalent measures in place. PPN 010 provides guidance on policies, tools and methodologies relating to the design of relevant steel procurements and clarifies the scope of reporting requirements on origin data forming part of the annual steel data return to the Department for Business and Trade. PPN 010 has been updated to include an example contract clause and actuals data template for the associated steel product and origin data requirements. PPN 010 has also been updated to reflect terminology introduced by PA 2023 and the Procurement Regulations 2024, SI 2024/692. For procurements commenced before the PA 2023 go-live on 24 February 2025, authorities should continue to refer to PPN 04/23.

Where there's no waiver, there's no way (Barclays Bank plc v VEB.RF)

Commercial analysis: The English High Court has provided further guidance on the interpretation of ‘no waiver’ clauses in a recent decision. The backdrop to this decision was a sanctions related dispute about the termination of a currency swap agreement between two banks, one of which was Russian, the other English. The agreement had a dispute resolution clause where the forum was arbitration unless the English bank gave notice that a dispute should be heard by the English courts. Pamela Vassil, lawyer at A&O Shearman, examines the court’s decision.