Abstract:
This article examines the judicial approach to s 4 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979. The section gives the courts discretion to determine whether or not an entire agreement or acknowledgement clause will prevent relief for misrepresentation. The author will show how the judicial approach to section 4 has shifted. Initially the courts displayed a reluctance to allow such clauses to deny relief for an actionable misrepresentation. However, the clauses are usually held to be conclusive between the parties now. In the face of one of the aforementioned clauses the courts are now reluctant to provide relief for misrepresentation in commercial cases in the absence of fraud. The author will argue that current approach is wrong, as it is inconsistent with parliamentary intent, the words of sections 4 and 6 of the Contractual Remedies Act, and early case law.
