Such clauses have long been subject to microscopic judicial scrutiny, with judges often showing considerable ingenuity to circumvent the clauses whenever they feel it is justified to do so. The purpose of a comprehensive contractual clause is to make it clear that the document in which it appears (and all other documents indicated) constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. This contributes to contractual security: the parties know that the agreement is limited to the four corners of the document. It may also limit a party`s liability for misrepresented representations (losses caused by statements made prior to the conclusion of the contract) and other potential claims. The general approach of the courts was to interpret entire contractual clauses in the same way as exclusion clauses. As confirmed by the Court of Appeal in AXA Sun Life Services Plc v Campbell Martin Ltd and Others, a clear explanation to this effect is necessary if a party wishes to effectively exclude the liability of a representation or other representation. In Soboczynski v. Beauchamp, 2015 ONCA 282, the Court of Appeal commented on the effects of a global contractual clause contained in a contract for the purchase and sale (GSP) of a house. The special clause stipulated that if, for any reason, the previous agreement was not explicitly included, that prior agreement could, in certain circumstances, lead to a legally binding obligation, notwithstanding the fact that the contract contains a full contractual clause. This is due to the doctrine of waiver by agreement, which was recently investigated in relation to entire contractual terms in Mears Ltd v Shoreline Housing Partnership Ltd3. However, the exclusion of a particular implied clause depends not only on the wording of the entire contractual term, but also on the nature of the implied clause and, in particular, whether it is considered “intrinsic” or “extrinsian” to the written agreement. Subject to the legal and customary restrictions applicable to limitations of liability, it will in principle be possible to exclude clauses that may be implied by law as long as the entire contractual clause contains clear terms to that effect. While entire contractual clauses are common, there has been some uncertainty as to their applicability, given that contract law has evolved to allow for acts and comments to be taken into account outside of the written agreement.

Do full contractual clauses apply to prevent insurance from being taken into account during negotiations? Do they apply to prevent the implementation of guarantees issued after the signing of the written contract? In a decision that did not receive much public attention, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently provided some very useful answers to these questions. Furthermore, it is reasonable that the whole treaty should be included in the agreements and not in oral ancillary agreements. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal found that it was reasonable to include the clause in the agreements. The purpose of a full statement of agreement is to exclude one of the exceptions to the “Parol Evidence” rule, which allows evidence to be provided in order to vary the terms of a written contract if it is possible to prove that the contract was not intended to express all the terms agreed between the parties. . . .