The long series of cases on whole contractual clauses shows that entire contractual clauses: whole contractual clauses have been granted precise judicial review for many years. There is an excellent history of them and the changes in public policy over time here. In the case of complex or higher-value transactions, an unrestricted comprehensive contractual clause may be unjustified because it can cause more problems to one or both parties than it resolves: it may terminate all previous contracts between the parties. A full provision of the agreement does not exclude a claim in a misrepresentation, as the denial of contractual force in respect of a statement cannot influence the status of misrepresentation of the statement. The same clause in an agreement may contain both a full provision of the contract and another provision that seeks to exclude liability in the event of misrepresentation and breach of its obligations. A simple comprehensive construction contract clause could, in appropriate circumstances, be worded as follows: The purpose of the full clauses is to try to ensure that the terms and conditions governing the parties` obligations and their intentions are set out in a single contractual document and, therefore, exclude any statement that could have been made prior to the signing of the contract (particularly in the context of pre-contract negotiations). The clause therefore ensures a clear legal relationship between the parties and the courts, and the wording must be sufficiently clear for such a clause to give rise to the intended legal effects. (1) Full contractual clauses do so by providing that the agreement between the parties is limited to the terms of the contractual documents, and nothing else. In The Inntrepreneur Pub Co v East Crown Ltd (4), the Supréme Court defined such a clause by recalling that: this type of clause are particularly popular in the branches, in which sales methods have been designed to induce a party to enter into the contract: In addition, a full clause cannot prevent a party from submitting an application for rectification on the grounds that the contract does not reflect what was actually agreed (8).
The full clauses must also comply with the provisions of the 1977 Abusive Contract Clauses Act and must therefore be «reasonable» or the clause will be null and later. 9. This agreement constitutes the whole agreement between the contracting parties and replaces all prior agreements, agreements, negotiations and discussions, both written and public. There are no guarantees, alliances, conditions or other agreements, explicit or implied, of security, legal or otherwise, between the parties in relation to the purpose of this agreement, unless it is expressly included in it. 5) The objective of a complete clause of the contract is to prevent a party to a written agreement from crossing the undergrowth and to find, during the negotiations, an observation or statement (accidental) (often forgotten or difficult to recall or explain) on which a right such as this to the existence of a security guarantee (…)should be based. 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 . Since it is a design issue, it depends on the exact terms of the clause and the agreement as a whole and it is not necessarily useful to rely on judgments on different provisions.