Show simple item record

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


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record