Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11718/22062
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorPathak, Akhileshwar-
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-03T20:27:21Z-
dc.date.available2019-06-03T20:27:21Z-
dc.date.issued2019-03-27-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11718/22062-
dc.description.abstractThe founding principle of contracts is the freedom of the parties. The parties are free to choose their terms and follow any modality of communication, oral or written. As they can freely make a contract, they can freely modify or unmake it. Written contracts have a clause, No Oral Modification Clause (NOM Clause), precluding oral modifications of the contract. Irrespective of it, business persons make oral agreements modifying the contract, and later, dispute its validity. If the parties are free to contract, why should the oral agreement not be binding? In a NOM Clause then, ineffective? The United Kingdom Supreme Court, in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd, explores this fundamental question on contract law.en_US
dc.publisherIndian Institute of Management Ahmedabaden_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesBP0434;-
dc.subjectFormation of Contractsen_US
dc.subjectNo Oral Modifications Clauseen_US
dc.titleSanctity of Oral Agreements: MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltden_US
dc.typeCases and Notesen_US
Appears in Collections:Cases and Notes

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in IIMA Institutional Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.