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. However, in the design phase, it is risky to rely on the Tribunal adopting a more comprehensive view of the interpretation of the standard basic rules (such as the fact that the decision was overturned in November 2018 in the context of an appeal). It is better to include the standard exclusion for misrepresentation and avoid any conflict of nat. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision and confirmed that the disconfidence clause was an exclusion clause in Section 3. The approach taken by the court was very simple: would the owner have been held because of misrepresentation under the Law on Misrepresentation, but for the clause? The answer was yes. At first glance, therefore, the clause worked to exclude liability and there was no evidence to suggest anything else. The fact that the clause functioned as a contractual Estoppel (which prevents the tenant from arguing that a representation took place because the tenant had accepted that nothing was considered a representation said by the landlord) does not change the difference. Section 3 was used. The adequacy assessment was therefore applied. The owner had argued that the clause was appropriate, given that the parties were legally represented, had the same bargaining power and the parties did not have contracts on the landlord`s standard terms. The judge accepted these facts but did not find them conclusive.
The judge recognized the importance of a pre-contract investigation in the area of promotion by declaring the clause inappropriate; If the owner has the right to exclude liability for these insurances, the important function of responding to pre-contract requests would become worthless. The Court of Appeal upheld its decision. Entire contractual clauses and non-confidence clauses are generally used jointly to remove the legal clean-up of the slate, since it was agreed at the time of the agreement of the new contract. However, in some cases, previous agreements may prevail, even if, because of the Estoppel doctrine by convention, this agreement contains a full contractual clause.21The doctrine of the Estoppel by convention means that a party is discouraged from arguing that a contract is not altered by the conduct of the parties, although the contract includes a “comprehensive agreement” clause. Entire contractual clauses are sometimes referred to as “comprehensive agreement” clauses. The concepts of type that are implied in Hipwell on the basis of commercial efficiency have been described as “intrinsic” to the written agreement, in the sense that they are part of the contract itself.