Do you want BuboFlash to help you learning these things? Or do you want to add or correct something? Click here to log in or create user.



Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
the trend of the case law is to resist reliance on entire agreement clauses where this is seen as an attempt to dodge liability for misrepresentations. So, for example in Axa Sun Life Services plc v Campbell Martin Ltd and Others [2011] EWCA Civ 133, Rix LJ, referring to the earlier cases, said (at para 94):

No doubt all such cases are only authority for each clause's particular wording:
nevertheless it seems to me that there are certain themes which deserve recognition. Among them is that the exclusion of liability for misrepresentation has to be clearly stated. It can be done by clauses which state the parties' agreement that there have been no representations made; or that there has been no reliance on any representations; or by an express exclusion of liability for misrepresentation. However, save in such contexts, and particularly where the word 'representations' takes its place alongside other words expressive of contractual obligation, talk of the parties' contract superseding such prior agreement will not by itself absolve a party of misrepresentation where its ingredients can be proved.

The lesson to be taken from Axa is that the courts will not lightly read an 'entire agreement' clause as an exclusion of liability for misrepresentation. Moreover, even if a clause is read as an exclusion, it will have to survive the statutory test of reasonableness under [ statute ] (see Chapter 13).
Answer
s 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967

Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
the trend of the case law is to resist reliance on entire agreement clauses where this is seen as an attempt to dodge liability for misrepresentations. So, for example in Axa Sun Life Services plc v Campbell Martin Ltd and Others [2011] EWCA Civ 133, Rix LJ, referring to the earlier cases, said (at para 94):

No doubt all such cases are only authority for each clause's particular wording:
nevertheless it seems to me that there are certain themes which deserve recognition. Among them is that the exclusion of liability for misrepresentation has to be clearly stated. It can be done by clauses which state the parties' agreement that there have been no representations made; or that there has been no reliance on any representations; or by an express exclusion of liability for misrepresentation. However, save in such contexts, and particularly where the word 'representations' takes its place alongside other words expressive of contractual obligation, talk of the parties' contract superseding such prior agreement will not by itself absolve a party of misrepresentation where its ingredients can be proved.

The lesson to be taken from Axa is that the courts will not lightly read an 'entire agreement' clause as an exclusion of liability for misrepresentation. Moreover, even if a clause is read as an exclusion, it will have to survive the statutory test of reasonableness under [ statute ] (see Chapter 13).
Answer
?

Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
the trend of the case law is to resist reliance on entire agreement clauses where this is seen as an attempt to dodge liability for misrepresentations. So, for example in Axa Sun Life Services plc v Campbell Martin Ltd and Others [2011] EWCA Civ 133, Rix LJ, referring to the earlier cases, said (at para 94):

No doubt all such cases are only authority for each clause's particular wording:
nevertheless it seems to me that there are certain themes which deserve recognition. Among them is that the exclusion of liability for misrepresentation has to be clearly stated. It can be done by clauses which state the parties' agreement that there have been no representations made; or that there has been no reliance on any representations; or by an express exclusion of liability for misrepresentation. However, save in such contexts, and particularly where the word 'representations' takes its place alongside other words expressive of contractual obligation, talk of the parties' contract superseding such prior agreement will not by itself absolve a party of misrepresentation where its ingredients can be proved.

The lesson to be taken from Axa is that the courts will not lightly read an 'entire agreement' clause as an exclusion of liability for misrepresentation. Moreover, even if a clause is read as an exclusion, it will have to survive the statutory test of reasonableness under [ statute ] (see Chapter 13).
Answer
s 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"

Parent (intermediate) annotation

Open it
a is that the courts will not lightly read an 'entire agreement' clause as an exclusion of liability for misrepresentation. Moreover, even if a clause is read as an exclusion, it will have to survive the statutory test of reasonableness under <span>s 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (see Chapter 13).<span><body><html>

Original toplevel document (pdf)

cannot see any pdfs

Summary

statusnot learnedmeasured difficulty37% [default]last interval [days]               
repetition number in this series0memorised on               scheduled repetition               
scheduled repetition interval               last repetition or drill

Details

No repetitions


Discussion

Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.