MWB operates serviced offices in central London. Rock entered a contractual licence with MWB to occupy office space in Marble Arch and had accumulated licence fees in arrears. The original licence agreement contained a `No Oral Modification' clause that said: 'All variations to this licence must be agreed, set out in writing and signed on behalf of both parties before they take effect'. After 6 months, Rock director re-negotiated to extend payment period over phone call and MWB credit controller agreed his proposal. Is this agreement considered as an effective variation to the original licence agreement?
- Yes, because parties who agree to altering the original contract orally despite a `No Oral.
- Modification' clause, must have intended to dispense with the clause
- No, because the mechanism for variation has been set out in the original contract
- Yes, because the credit controller had agreed with Rock director's proposal
- No, because Rock director assumed that the variation was effective and convinced credit controller to believe it
Answer(s): C
Explanation:
The license can be amended during its lifespan. However, in this case, it already has a clause allowing for mechanism of variation which sets out who can authorise changes and prohibits any oral variation. Therefore, the agreement between Rock's director and MWB credit controller is not an effective variation to the license.
Reference:
CIPS study guide page 26-27 LO 1, AC 1.1
Reveal Solution Next Question