In addition, the parties could usefully verify whether there is relevant pre-contract conduct between the parties or a use that could be excluded by a full contractual clause. Consider the scenario in which a long-term contract is renewed and the parties sign an “modified” or “replicated” agreement. If, during the performance of this contract, a recognized practice does not comply with its strict conditions (e.g. B billing after 30 days, if the contract says 14 days), but the amended contract is not amended to reflect this and remains in its original form, the parties have probably excluded their right to avail themselves of this prior conduct. Issuing invoices after 30 days would now constitute a breach of contract under the revised new agreement. Contracting parties must carefully consider the inclusion of a full contractual clause, both when entering into new contracts and when amending or amending existing contracts. Gaps in development are always best avoided. Where there are gaps, a whole agreement will not prevent the courts from filling them. Rix LJ then conducted an analysis of all major authorities in this area, including the recent cases of Trident Turboprop (Dublin) Ltd v First Flight Couriers Ltd  EWHC 1686 (Comm),  2 Lloyd`s Rep 581, BSkyB Ltd v HP Enterprise Services UK Ltd  EWHC 86 (TCC) and Springwell Navigation Corporation v. JP Morgan Chase Bank  EWCA Civ 1221, in which the Court of Appeal upheld its decision in Peekay Intermark Ltd v.
ANZ Banking Group Ltd  EWCA 1551,  2 Lloyd`s Rep 511, as a clause recognizing the non-reporting of non-declarations is an effective exclusion from liability for misrepresentation and that the Lowe/Lombank analysis  1 WLR 196 (CA) with respect to estoppele requires nothing else. The accused agreed to be related to Springwell, but they maintained their position at the Supreme Court level. Rix LJ noted that this case is frequently invoked, for example. B in Chitty on Contracts, 30th ed, 2008, for asserting that a misrepresentation of the effect of an exemption clause inserted by the representative in his contract would prevent the agent from availing himself of this clause. But that was not the right analysis. 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. Hipwell was concerned with a commercial lease, although this real context does not matter, since the principle on which it applied is widespread in trade agreements. In summary, a commercial tenant was forced to close her business due to problems caused by dangerous power lines. She tried to recoup her losses from her landlord.
As the landlord did not have an explicit clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the landlord to maintain and repair the electrical installations on the premises, the tenant stated, among other things, that there was a clause to that effect.