UK: Entire Agreement? Admissibility Of Pre-Contract Negotiations

Last Updated: 24 March 2010
Article by Leila Woollam

Originally published August 2009

The recent case of Chartbrook and Another v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Others [2009] saw the House of Lords reaffirming the long-established position that under English law, anything said or done in the course of negotiating a contract is inadmissible as evidence of what the contract was intended to mean.

This is reflected in the boilerplate "entire agreement" clause present in most commercial contracts, an example of which is below.

"This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements or representations relating to the subject matter of this Agreement.

The parties acknowledge that in entering into this agreement, they do not rely on any statement or representation made by the other which is not expressly set out in this Agreement."

The law developed in this way in order to promote certainty and reduce disputes over interpretation, particularly as the assignment of contracts became more common. The remedies of rectification and estoppel may be invoked where necessary, since in such actions pre-contract negotiations are admissible on an equitable basis. The Chartbrook decision is therefore surprising because although it on the one hand it affirms the exclusionary rule established in Prenn v Simmonds [1971], the Lords stepped in and effectively rewrote a "commercially absurd" contract – a remedy generally only available in rectification.

The brief facts of the case were that Persimmon, a developer, and Chartbrook, a landowner, signed a Development Agreement in October 2001. Once the development was complete, a dispute arose between them as to the calculation of an "additional residential payment" ("ARP") payable by Persimmon to Chartbrook. The ARP and how to calculate it was defined in the Development Agreement but Persimmon argued it owed Chartbrook £897,051 while Chartbrook made it £4,484,862 and issued proceedings. The disparity between these two figures arose from the ARP being at best not clearly defined, although the fact it was defined at all proved critical. The defined phrases begin with capitals -

"Additional Residential Payment means 23.4% of the price achieved for each Residential Unit in excess of the Minimum Guaranteed Residential Unit Value less the Costs and Incentives"

Chartbrook argued that it was entitled to 23.4% of the price achieved for each Residential Unit in excess of an unspecified but by their calculations minimum guaranteed amount – the £4 million figure they claimed. Persimmon's interpretation was that the ARP was only payable if 23.4% of the net proceeds of sale amounted to more than the Guaranteed Residential Unit Value (£900,000) so the ARP was contingent on that. While the problem was syntactical, reference in the definition of ARP to four other defined terms, themselves not clear, muddied the waters further.

In their defence, Persimmon stated that if it were unsuccessful on construction, it would seek rectification of the Development Agreement on the basis of common or unilateral mistake, to reflect the underlying commercial intentions between the parties. At first instance, Persimmon lost both their construction and rectification arguments, but appealed on both issues in December 2007.

Persimmon lost on appeal, with one dissenting voice. Lord Justice Laurence Collins stated that the case presented a syntactical analysis at odds with business common sense, and that Persimmon's interpretation of the APR was correct.

When the case reached the Lords in July 2009, all five of their Lordships found for Persimmon.

What is interesting here is that throughout the proceedings, virtually all of the correspondence used in pre-contract negotiations was made available to the Court, adduced by Persimmon, hoping to prove that a set formula had been agreed upon for the ARP entitling Chartbrook to it only on a contingent basis. This in itself is unusual since the real issue was one of construction of the contract. Persimmon argued that since particular meanings of certain words and phrases within the contract had not been defined within it, extraneous evidence was therefore necessary to construe their true meanings, as the parties had used their own "private dictionary".

The Court of Appeal had held that the "private dictionary" inroad into the usual exclusion of pre-contractual negotiations was permissible in this instance. It was however at some pains to stress that this "private dictionary" inroad would not be available in any such dispute where the word or phrase was expressly defined in the contract. Persimmon lost in seeking rectification.

The case on which the Court of Appeal relied was very recent – Proforce Recruit Ltd v The Rugby Group Ltd [2006]. In his judgment in that case, LJ Arden had stated

"...the parties have used a very unusual combination of words...these are undefined and they are not introduced or accompanied by any words of explanation. In those circumstances it is in my judgment reasonably arguable that on their true interpretation those words bear the meaning that the parties in common gave them in their communications leading up to the signing of the contract. In admitting evidence as to those communications, the court would be hearing that evidence not with a view for taking the parties' subjective intent into account for the purposes of interpretation but for the purpose of identifying the meaning that the parties in effect incorporated into their agreement..."

The Lords took a rather different view in Chartbrook v Persimmon. Lord Hoffman said

"There is not, so to speak, a limit to the amount of red ink or verbal rearrangement or correction which the court is allowed. All that is required is that it should be clear that something has gone wrong with the language and that it should be clear what a reasonable person would have understood the parties to have meant."

Yet rectification was not granted to Persimmon by the House of Lords. Persimmon ultimately won their case on construction. At the same time, it was expressly held that there were no reasons to depart from the long-standing rule in Prenn v Simmons.

Lord Hoffmann may have had an earlier case of his in mind, namely Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society [1998]. In his 1998 judgment, Lord Hoffmann had defined interpretation of a contract as

"...the ascertainment of the meaning which the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the the time of the contract."

Lord Hoffmann went on to note that in Prenn v Simmonds, Lord Wilberforce had famously referred to such background knowledge as the "matrix of fact", stating that

"...this phrase is, if anything, an understated description of what the background may include. Subject to the requirement that it should have been reasonably available to the parties and to the exception to be mentioned next, it includes absolutely anything which would have affected the way in which the language of the document would have been understood by a reasonable man.

The law excludes from the admissible background the previous negotiations of the parties and their declarations of subjective intent. They are admissible only in an action for rectification."

Eleven years later, in the Persimmon case, Lord Hoffmann reiterated that pre-contractual negotiations were not admissible in a contractual dispute, but only in an action for rectification.

Had Persimmon not included an action for rectification, one wonders if their case could have made it to the Lords. It is interesting to note that their action for rectification failed at every attempt, although the pre-contractual negotiations were thereby admissible and the court provided an equitable remedy in rewriting the parts of the contract that made no commercial sense. It appears that the pre-contractual negotiations formed part of the "matrix of fact", thus allowing them to be used in determining a construction dispute.

The Lords denied rectification to Persimmon on the grounds that rectification would only have been available had there been a mistake in reducing a prior consensus to writing. Since there was no consensus between the parties, the agreement should have been interpreted in the manner of a reasonable observer, and not what either one or even both the parties believed it to be.

Nonetheless, future difficulty will lie in establishing where background facts end and pre-contractual negotiations begin. As ever, parties to a contract would be well advised to stress-test their contracts prior to inception and to use plain English wherever possible.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions