In other words, an integrated agreement severely limits whether the parties can supplement or contradict the terms of the agreement by introducing evidence, documents or other agreements between the parties. “Estoppel by convention” where the parties share a state of affairs or law adopted and have reacted to that assumption in such a way that it is unfair or unacceptable to allow either party to reverse that assumption. The Parol Evidence Rule stipulates that if the parties have reached a full and final agreement – that is, if an agreement is integrated – the terms of the agreement cannot be amended or refuted by previous agreements, except in cases of fraud, coercion or mutual error. 2. Each party acknowledges that it does not rely, for the conclusion of this agreement, on an insurance or guarantee (innocent or negligent) that is not specified in this agreement and that it has no corrective action in this regard. 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. This interpretive approach is not limited to entire contractual clauses. As the Court of Appeal recognized in Goodlife Foods Limited/Hall Fire Protection Limited, there is a broader tendency for the courts to maintain the conditions freely agreed between the parties with respect to the actual and contractual context. In that case, it was responsibility for a factory fire.
The contractor responsible for the design and installation of the fire protection system is liable under a very broad prescription clause in its terms and conditions of sale, which reads: “We exclude any liability, loss, damage or other consequences for your property, property, persons or other property, directly or indirectly, due to our negligence or delay or malfunction of the systems or components provided by HFS. In the case of defective parts, we only take into account the free replacement of these defective parts. As an alternative to our basic offer, we can offer insurance to cover the risks mentioned above. If necessary, ask for the additional costs associated with this coverage. The Court of Appeal found that the licensee could invoke the exclusion clause. In considering the adequacy of the clause, the Court of Justice recognized that the clause is largely worded, but is generally reasonable under the agreement. In particular, the Court referred to the insurance agreements and the fact that the contractor proposed to assume responsibility for that insurance for an additional fee. As such, the clause constituted a “completely reasonable division of the risk of loss and damage between two broadly identical commercial concerns and bargaining power.” We have seen the outcome of the entire contractual clause when the parties have entered into several agreements and there are contradictions in the terms of the last agreement and the previous agreement and the recent agreement, which can depart from the previous agreement by the entire agreement clause, even if the parties have not foreseen/projected such a scenario.