Varying a contract

Varying a contract

Over the course of a commercial arrangement, there will be occasions when a written contract needs to be varied or amended to reflect the changing needs of the parties or environment within which they are operating. Written contracts will either contain a prohibition on any variation or allow changes to be made, perhaps on the condition that such changes are in writing and signed off by the parties or their authorised representatives. A person purporting to vary and amend a contract must have the authority to do so.

An agreement that does not need to be in writing (or evidenced by it) may be varied by the oral agreement of the parties.

Any agreement to vary a contract is subject to general contract principles and needs to be supported by consideration. If an attempted contract

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

ASA rulings—4 February 2026

Two complaints were received by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) concerning environmental claims made on the advertisers’ websites for baby nappies and wipes. The ASA upheld both complaints.

Key provisions of Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 to come into force on 5 February 2026

The Secretary of State has made the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA 2025) (Commencement No 6 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Regulations 2026, SI 2026/82, which bring the majority of the DUAA 2025’s data protection reforms into force from 5 February 2026. These regulations commence provisions relating to research and statistical purposes, consent to processing for scientific research, the lawfulness of processing, purpose limitation, data subject requests, automated decision-making, data protection by design for children, and the transfers of personal data to third countries, among others. Further provisions concerning complaints by data subjects will come into force on 19 June 2026.

ICO publishes letter on progress against economic growth commitments and work planned for 2026

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has published a letter to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade setting out a one-year update on its five economic growth commitments made in January 2025. These commitments are to: (1) give businesses regulatory certainty on artificial intelligence (AI); (2) cut costs for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs); (3) enable greater innovation through its Regulatory Sandbox and Innovation Advice services; (4) unlock privacy-preserving online advertising; and (5) make it quicker and easier to transfer data internationally. The letter confirms that the ICO is working with the government on legislation to introduce a statutory code of practice on AI and automated decision-making, and that its expanded data essentials platform for SMEs is due to launch in spring 2026. It also states that the ICO has secured funding to design an experimentation regime to support the testing of emerging technologies, with research findings due by mid-February 2026. In addition, the ICO says it is assessing low-risk online advertising activities that could operate without consent under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) and will provide evidence to the government in the spring. The letter also highlights that the ICO published updated guidance on international data transfers in January 2026, aimed at simplifying requirements and supporting cross-border data flows, which underpin around 40% of UK exports. The ICO adds that it will continue to issue further guidance and improve regulatory clarity throughout 2026.

Unjust enrichment, NOM clauses and advisory scope (RMK v Euronav)

Commercial analysis: In RMK Maritime (Europe) Ltd and another company v CMB.Tech NV (previously known as Euronav NV), the Commercial Court dismissed a quantum meruit claim for nearly US$11.7m brought by RMK seeking payment for alleged extra-contractual services. Mr Justice Henshaw held that: (1) The services fell within the scope of the parties’ advisory agreement, and (2) In any event, unjust enrichment could not be used to circumvent a detailed contractual framework reinforced by a no oral modification (NOM) clause and an express variation mechanism. The decision is a reaffirmation of contractual primacy in sophisticated commercial relationships. It provides important guidance on the interaction between unjust enrichment and contract, the legal effect of NOM clauses, and the risks of broadly drafted advisory scopes. For commercial practitioners, the case underscores a simple point: if additional services are to be paid for, they must be agreed and documented at the time. This article is written by Zara Yusuf, barrister at Three Stone.