The court accepted the seller. As Axa Sun Life has acknowledged, this decision applies only to the design of the entire contractual clause in question. In addition, the elimination of a given clause must be determined within the framework of the agreement as a whole. In this regard, the Tribunal concluded that the parties intended to reject the entire misrepresentation clause in the agreement. In particular, the Court of Justice`s analysis of the application of Article 3 and the fact that the waiver of contractual law is not an answer to the question whether it applies is particularly interesting. As the Court of Justice has acknowledged, the fact that the clause gave rise to a breach of contract law would prevent the application of Section 3 would mean that, subject to other applicable laws, the contracting parties could, with impunity, make such non-fraudulent false statements. Those who drafted the misrepresentation law did not intend for the contracting parties to circumvent section 3 with such clever wording. Adding its comments to those of Lewison LJ, leggatt LJ was prepared to go further and state: «I would say that if one party invokes the principle of breach of contract law to argue that a contractual term prevents the other party from asserting a fact necessary to establish liability for pre-contractual misrepresentation, this term is covered by section 3 of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Such a period is therefore effective, unless it satisfies the adequacy requirement referred to in Article 11 of the UCTA. Therefore, the contracting parties must be aware that it will only be applied in the drafting of a clause that would lead to contractual effect if it satisfies ucta`s adequacy assessment. A typical comprehensive contractual clause could be as follows: in addition, extrinsic evidence is admissible if the validity of the contract itself is called into question. Section 92 Reservation (1) of the IEA justifies this rule and provides that oral evidence is admissible to demonstrate that a contract is either void or countervailable on grounds of fraud, coercion or illegality of the subject matter.8 Oral evidence is also admissible to prove fraudulent misrepresentation9. demonstrate a party`s responsibility for misrepresentation or for evidence of opacity. of a contract.

However, in some cases, earlier agreements may prevail, even if this agreement contains a full contractual clause under the doctrine of violation of law by convention.21The doctrine of Estoppels by convention means that a party is «set apart» from arguing that a contract is not altered by the conduct of the parties, although the treaty contains an «entire agreement» clause. . . .