Our articles are written by experts in their field and include individual barristers, solicitors, academics, judges, and leading firms in relevant areas of practice. JIBFL offers authoritative insights into global banking and financial law, providing essential updates for legal practitioners and policymakers. Covering key topics like lending, security interests, derivatives, debt capital markets, banking and finance related disputes, crypto, FinTech and financial regulation, JIBFL serves as a trusted resource for navigating complex legal challenges and staying informed in the financial sector. If you would like to contribute, please email Amanda.Cohen2@lexisnexis.com.
Boilerplate terms restricting freedoms in composite transactions: some traps for the unwary
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
Entire agreement and no oral modification clauses are designed to promote contractual certainty. But far from guaranteeing that result, their inclusion in transactions implemented by multiple contractual documents can increase the risk of injustice by restricting the availability and operation of rectification and estoppel, even where the contractual documentation does not accord with the parties’ mutual dealings. This article explores how those risks arise so that drafters may seek to mitigate them.
If you are already a User, sign in
Or you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Alternatively you can subscribe here to read unlimited content.
