The great thing about the legal profession is its breadth and the really wide range of work available. Arguments between solicitors and barristers about the relative prestige and interest of their roles have been raging for many years but similarly solicitors argue about the merits and demerits of different areas of work. Is it better to be supporting the less well off and trying to ensure their continued access to justice notwithstanding the cuts to Legal Aid provision, or to be doing City work, dealing with very big numbers in huge commercial cases? You’ll make your own decisions but here at Law Answered we periodically debate our own interests, a legal update which excites one of us might leave the rest of us cold. Here’s one that falls into that category.
Who’s for a new case on entire agreement and no oral modification clauses? NHS England v Vasant is probably worth a quick look. For one thing the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to comment again on Wells v Devani and on MWB Business Exchange v Rock. If you get the chance to comment on three recent cases in the answer to an exam question that ought to be worth a few extra marks!
In Wells v Devani the court had been prepared to imply terms into a contract to give it efficacy. The reluctance of courts to find there was no contract in circumstances where there had been part performance was noted and approved in NHS v Vasant.
MWB v Rock had upheld a no verbal modification term. NHS v Vasant was also prepared to give validity to such a clause but found on its facts that an original contract had been varied by a signed variation clause which complied with the variation provisions in the original contract. While the variation clause was valid in Vasant it affected only the particular work to which it referred and did not impact the wider terms of the original agreement between a bunch of dentists and the NHS. The dentists were able to rely on their original contract terms to stop the NHS bringing an end to its contract with them on the basis of one month’s notice as contemplated under the smaller subject specific contract.
Well anyway, some of us thought that this was an interesting case and a neat tie up. What do you think?