We cannot display this gallery

Variation Agreement Template South Africa

“The parties have the freedom to agree on the conditions they set and can do so in a document, by word of mouth or by the behaviour. In this context, the fact that the parties` contract contains a clause such as section 6.3 eliminates the uncertainty that alters a new contract by verbal agreement or conduct.┬áIt is up to any party to an agreement with an invariance clause to ensure that the requirements, as confirmed by the Tribunal in spring Forrest, are met in order to avoid any dispute over the validity and applicability of the amendments to the agreement. Sometimes it is not only wise, but essential to change a contract in writing. Commercial contracts often contain a clause stating that an amendment is only valid if it is written and signed by all parties. This type of clause aims to strike a balance between flexibility and security. While it allows the parties to amend their agreement (and thus allow the parties to be flexible in reflecting developments and subsequent changes in practice), this means that the parties should always have a definitive record of the agreed terms (depending on the time) and, therefore, avoid any dispute over the terms and conditions governing their relationship. As technology moves as fast as it has, coupled with the demands of the rapidly changing business world, parties to written agreements have begun to record orally agreed changes by e-mail, instead of preparing complements to agreements. This seemed to be a quick and simple way to accept changes to written documents to meet the “written” requirement. The parties were comforted by the fact that the oral discussions were recorded by e-mail, on the basis that the non-variation clauses were respected. Like the South African courts, the arguments considered by the Tribunal as to whether or not to apply a non-variation clause had a need for security and recognized the inevitable difficulties of evidence associated with the assertion that an oral contract had been entered into.

In the end, however, the Court of Appeal found that the non-variation clause was not strictly applicable. Referring to the clause under consideration, Lord Justice Beatson stated that, in the event of a dispute, if the parties have reached a valid agreement on the renewal of the contract, the court will decide the matter in light of the usual rules of interpretation of the contract. The principle set out in Shifren confirms that the contracting parties are able to limit their future contractual freedom by requiring that any change be valid only if it takes place in the form prescribed by the respective contract (usually in writing).

Call Us Today

(309) 264-3093