Whether a full clause in the contract (contrary to Hipwell`s clause) is used to exclude unspoken terms depends on a number of factors. Entire contractual clauses offer the contracting parties considerable comfort, whether they are responsible only for the written texts of the contract and not, for example, for pre-contract statements or so-called assurances. However, in practice, the existence of a full contractual clause in the contract will not necessarily prevent a party from asserting a right that exceeds the “four walls” of the written contract. The Court of Justice`s analysis of the application of Section 3 and the fact that the contractual Estoppel is not an answer to the question of whether it applies is of particular interest. As the Court recognized, the fact that the clause gave rise to a contractual estoppel would preclude the application of Section 3 would mean that, subject to other applicable laws, the contracting parties could, without prejudice to an unpreacceptious misinterpretation of this type. Those who drafted the Misrepresentation Act did not intend to go around the parties through such an intelligent wording of Section 3. Leggatt LJ added his comments regarding Lewison LJ and stated: “I assume that when a contractor relies on the principle of contractual Estoppel, he argues that the other party is prevented, because of a contract term, from asserting a necessary circumstance to determine liability for a pre-contract misrepresentation. the term falls under Section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Such a concept is therefore ineffective unless it meets the adequacy requirement set out in Section 11 of the UCTA.” The contracting parties must therefore be aware that, when drafting a clause that would lead to a contractual estoppel, they will only be applied if they complete the UCTA adequacy review. The extent of benefits is a formal document that describes: subject to the legal and general limitations on liability, it is generally possible to exclude clauses that may be provided for by law, provided that the entire clause of the contract contains clear words to that effect. In other words, the scope of the service agreement is an official contract that defines all the criteria of the above contract between you and a service provider. The treaty helps to avoid situations and ambiguities that may give rise to litigation. As such, it is a mutually beneficial cooperation between you and another party.
Although this was the decision of a Masters to summarise the reasons for judgment, it draws attention to the dangers of a rigid approach to the interpretation of the standard clauses of the boiler platform. As with any other clause, they are always interpreted as part of the overall contract.