. covered by land No. 30 in Manga Tayaramma at Rs 65 per square meter for an overall reflection of Rs 42,575. The oral purchase agreement in question was concluded between the claimant and Smt Manga Tayaramma. register the necessary deed of sale in favor of the Vendee Smt Manga Tayaramma within a week of the oral purchase agreement and promise to obtain the necessary authorization for the sale of schedule properties. 26,000 should be handed over to the applicant at the time of registration of the deed of sale. The defendant`s mother-in-law, Manga Tayaramma, received a draft by pursuing the said oral purchase agreement. Although the outcome of this case may entail an additional administrative burden to ensure stricter compliance with the terms of an agreement, the parties to the trade should take solency in the fact that there is now only limited room for manoeuvre to derogate from the terms of an agreement following oral discussions. The choice of treaty primacy gives healthy clarity and security. The first instance decision was in favour of MET, but was set aside by the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal found that the revised and rescheduled lease proposal was equivalent to an “oral agreement” between the parties, which varied the terms of the underlying license agreement and amounted to a waiver agreement for the No Oral Modification clause. In its decision, the Court of Appeal emphasized the importance of party autonomy and found that parties should be able to enter into contracts outside of the requirements set out in an underlying agreement. The importance of this decision should not be underestimated. It provides very useful clarity as to the approach that the parties should take with regard to agreement and compliance with the terms of an agreement. In the background, there is the issue of certainty, in order to ensure that the commercial parties can cooperate, given that the conditions under which they are supposed to work are reasonably clear. While the Supreme Court`s decision was unanimous, Lord Briggs gave several reasons. While Lord Sumption considered that it was simply not possible to orally amend a contract if there was a clause without oral amendment, Lord Briggs considered that the parties should be able to agree orally on an amendment to a contract if the parties did not explicitly comment on the oral non-modification clause (if one existed). In its terms, a clause without oral modification “remains binding until all parties have expressly agreed (or by strictly necessary implication) to separate it”; an argument in favour of the supremacy of the party`s autonomy. Lord Briggs, however, was in the minority. Lord Sumption gave the leading judgment.
He concluded that the law should take the following approach: first, English law should not and should not give effect to oral amending clauses that set out the formalities to be followed for an amendment; and, secondly, after the conclusion of a contract, the autonomy of the party is only “to the extent that the contract so permits”. The dispute was reached under a licensing agreement allowing Rock to hold offices in London for a fixed period of 12 months. The license agreement contained an oral non-modification clause that all amendments must be “agreed, written and signed on behalf of both parties prior to their entry into force.” . . .