Indeed, such a clause constitutes a binding agreement between the parties, namely that the full terms of the contract are contained in the document containing the clause and not elsewhere and that, therefore, all commitments or assurances made during the negotiations (which, in the absence of such a clause, could constitute a guarantee) have no contractual effect. , provided they are reflected and effective in this document. Although entire contractual clauses are generally not considered exclusion clauses within the meaning of UCTA 1977, since the agreements in question were enshrined in AXA`s terms and conditions of sale, they were covered by legislation s3. This provides that an assessment of adequacy must be carried out when a party claims to be entitled to do something very different from what was reasonably expected of it. The Tribunal found that the guarantees are covered by this description and therefore submitted the adequacy verification clause. If the clause had also excluded liability for misrepresentation, the same requirement would have been imposed by the 1967 Act. And that`s what happened in Axa Sun Life Services plc v Campbell Martin Ltd et al (2011). The Court of Appeal found that the entire agreement clause was not effective in specifically excluding the things for which it was to be developed. In short, the “comprehensive agreement” clause is intended to clarify that all contractual terms are contained in the written document.
As an illustration, it was not sufficient to exclude the “intrinsic” tacit clauses of the Court of Appeal in Axa Sun Life plc/Campbell Martin Ltd. However, there is some uncertainty as to the effect of a comprehensive agreement clause that explicitly and explicitly excludes “intrinsic” notions that are implied on the basis of the commercial effect. While the Court`s approach is still to be expected in such a scenario, a subsidiary action by the Court of Appeal in Axa Sun Life casts doubt on whether such a clause would in future exclude the terms “intrinsic.”7 Conversely, it is also essential that a full clause of the contract be inserted into a contract to avoid any statement made during the negotiation phase being considered by the courts. However, the exclusion of a tacit clause depends not only on the drafting of the entire contractual clause, but also on the nature of the tacit clause and, in particular, whether it is considered “intrinsic” or “extrinsic” of the written agreement. In fact, the clauses in this section are as important as the rest of the contract, and although the wording used is often fairly standard, your legal team will have carefully reviewed each clause for your actual transaction. The general rule is that the entire agreement clause concludes the parties to conduct all oral evidence to prove the terms of the contract1, since the parties expressed by the entire agreement clause their intention that the document contains all the terms of their agreement2 and this supports the rule of evidence parol under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872 (“IEA”).3 There are, however, some exceptions to this general rule. If the contract does not contain all the conditions between the parties and the contract remains silent on the other conditions, the parties may present oral evidence of their negotiations to interpret or complete the contract4.