Contract cases—2016 in review [Archived]
Contract cases—2016 in review [Archived]

The following Dispute Resolution guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Contract cases—2016 in review [Archived]
  • Key contract cases for 2016—what do you need to know?
  • The end of anti-oral variation clauses? (Globe Motors, Rock Advertising)
  • Creating contracts by conduct (Reveille v Anotech)
  • When contracts must come to an end (MSC Mediterranean v Cottonex)
  • Contractual exclusions and limits on liability (Transocean, Star Polaris, Impact Funding, Nobahar-Cookson)
  • When are Wrotham Park damages available? (One Step v Morris-Garner)
  • Damages for deceit (OMV v Petrom)
  • Contract cases in 2016—closing remarks

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published.

Key contract cases for 2016—what do you need to know?

The year 2016 has seen a number of issues considered in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court on some key areas of contract dispute.

In this review of 2016, we consider:

  1. the end of anti-oral variation clauses? (Globe Motors, Rock Advertising)—see below

  2. creating contracts by conduct (Reveille v Anotech)—see below

  3. when contracts must come to an end (MSC Mediterranean v Cottonex)—see below

  4. limiting and excluding liability (Transocean Drilling, Star Polaris, Impact Funding, Nobahar-Cookson)—see below

  5. when are Wrotham Park damages available? (One Step v Morris-Garner)—see below

  6. damages for deceit (OMV Petrom v Glencore)—see below

The end of anti-oral variation clauses? (Globe Motors, Rock Advertising)

Two cases in 2016 saw Court of Appeal decisions concerned with the efficacy of anti-oral variation clauses.

In Globe Motors v TRW Lucas Varity the parties had entered into an agreement that contained an anti-oral variation clause, ie that only variations agreed to by the parties in writing were permitted. The issue for the Court of Appeal was whether this precluded purported variation of the contract either