The purchaser submitted that the drafting of the entire contractual clause was not broad enough to exclude false allegations. It submitted that it was intended only to rely on statements that might otherwise be considered contractual terms. The purchaser also submitted that a “cumulative corrective action” clause had led to the retention of misrepresentation claims. The clause provided that “the rights and remedies under the agreement are” in addition to legal and non-exclusive rights and remedies. The mere possibility that the words used may justify other types of claims (for example. B misrepresentation) did not justify the necessary intent. In the Al-Hasawi case against Nottingham Forest Football Club Ltd  EWHC 2884 (Ch), the High Court overturned a Masters decision stipulating that a full contractual clause excluded liability for allegations of misrepresentation. The High Court found that the entire agreement clause was not effective in excluding any allegations of misrepresentation, and the parties had not agreed to such an exclusion separately. Moreover, if it were legitimate to take into account all the provisions of an agreement to build one, it was not relevant for another clause of the contract to authorize the purchaser to benefit from a contractual right of compensation for the same purpose (the amount of the company`s debts) as the allegation of misrepresentation. It could have been economically wise to exclude a right because of a misrepresentation of damages, but the parties did not provide for it in the contract and the court should not intervene.
In The Al-Hasawi case, the judge took into account the entire contractual clause mentioned above, as well as other case law, and found that it was not sufficiently clear that the clause “should go beyond the scope of the contractual agreement and exclude other rights”. If the seller`s argument that the submission allegation had been excluded by the entire contractual clause had been accepted, the purchaser would not be able to make a claim for misrepresentation. The judge found that the terms of the clause were not clear enough to determine whether that was the intent. Hipwell v Szurek was about renting coffee rooms. The tenant had problems due to allegedly dangerous electrical pipes. The Tenant stated that she had the right to process the tenancy agreement. In particular, it argued that the lessor improperly violated a tacit clause that made it responsible for the maintenance and repair of electrical installations. The owner challenged the liability and invoked the entire contractual clause and the non-confidence clause in the lease.
They submit that the lease “constitutes the whole agreement and understanding of the parties regarding the transaction provided for by the granting of this tenancy agreement and replaces any prior agreement between the parties regarding the transaction” and that, at the conclusion of the tenancy agreement, the tenant “has no remedy with respect to a statement or insurance of the lessor or on behalf of the lessor and has no remedy. Rix LJ also pointed out that the “dissociability” clauses “any provision of this agreement” and the “variations” that are required to obtain any “modification or modification” of the contract also dealt with issues of contractual agreements. As these cases show, the judicial analysis of the clauses of the boiler grid will only provide guidance on their importance: the contractual context will always be crucial.