Mythbuster: ‘Entire agreement’ clauses lock out misrepresentation claims

People are often confused about the effect of clauses that say ‘You acknowledge that we have made no other promises or representations to you.’

Often you see such clauses quoted in support of an argument that a claim for misrepresentation cannot succeed where a contract contains this clause.

But that ain’t necessarily so.  In fact, it ain’t even normally so.

‘Entire agreement’ clauses

Typically they read something like this:

This document is the entire agreement between you and us and you acknowledge that we have made, and you rely on, no promise, representation or warranty to you that is not set out expressly in this document.

What they are supposed to achieve

In theory, an ‘entire agreement’ clause prevents you from claiming that you relied on something a salesperson told you, or otherwise sits outside the document.

But the law sidesteps them with ease

The law sees it this way:  If a person was told something misleading that caused them to decide to enter a contract, then their entry into the contract was obtained ‘on false pretences’.  That taints the contract from the moment of its inception.  It is, and always was, a contract obtained by misrepresentation.

So, when the law comes to the ‘entire agreement’ part of that tainted, flawed contract it reasons that it cannot operate as its black & white words suggest it does.  It simply won’t be enforced so as to wipe out the misrepresentation.

So are ‘entire agreement’ clauses irrelevant ?

No, they can have effect.

In deciding whether a person was induced into entering a contract by some external misrepresentation, the court must decide:

• what was actually said or otherwise represented
• whether it was true or false
• if it was false, whether the person would not have entered the contract has they known the truth.

This third element, often called the ‘reliance question’, is frequently overlooked by lay people.  They think that they can avoid a contract if they can show there was a misrepresentation leading up to it.  But they need to show more: they must show that they relied on the misrepresentation as a material factor in entering the contract.

A court can take an ‘entire agreement’ clause quite seriously as evidence that a person did not rely on some external representation.  It can say ‘We accept that a misrepresentation may have occurred, but in judging whether you relied on it we give weight to the fact that you signed a piece of paper saying that you didn’t.’

A high water mark example

Let’s say you sign a short contract after getting legal advice, and it contains a clear ‘entire agreement’ clause.  A court might well say:

• it’s a short contract
• the clause is clear
• you obtained legal advice
• you actually signed the document
• you must have very clearly considered the clause and chosen to assent to it -

so we are satisfied that you did not rely on the external representation you now complain about.  We accept that it was made, and that it was untrue.  But in all the circumstances including the ‘entire agreement’ clause, we don’t accept that you relied on it.

An example at the low water mark

At the other end of the scale, let’s say you sign up for a mobile phone service in store.  The provider uses a Standard Form of Agreement, which you don’t actually see before signing up.

Even if you did see it, it would be dozens of pages long and the ‘entire agreement’ clause is buried on page 24.

The only ‘advice’ you get about the deal is from the commission salesperson.

In those circumstances, if you can later point to a material misrepresentation, the court will sidestep the ‘entire agreement’ clause in a blink.  You did not carefully and consciously assent to the proposition that there was nothing more to the deal than what’s in black & white.

Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law

This must be the most quoted piece of consumer law on CSP Central.

A person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

In virtually every section 18 claim that involves a contract, there is an ‘entire agreement’ clause.  If such clauses could lock out misrepresentation claims, there’d be very few contract cases based around section 18.  (You should be aware that, until 1 January 2011, a nearly identical provision appeared in the old Trade Practices Act 1974, which has since been upgraded and re-named the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.)

But just take a stroll through these cases and you’ll see how many there have in fact been.

Myth busted

‘Entire agreement’ clauses can be important and effective.  But especially in consumer situations where the deal moves fast, the contract is not focused on and there’s no independent advice, they are no sure defence to a misrepresentation or section 18 claim.