How is &quot;raising defences to summary judgment&quot; an example of a contract being undermined that can be prevented with a NOM clause?
<p>In Rock Advertising Ltd. v. MWB Bus. Exchange Centres Ltd [2018] UK 24 Lord Sumption lists reasons why No Oral Modification clauses are beneficial.</p>

<p>"The first is that it prevents attempts to undermine written agreements by informal means, a possibility which is open to abuse, for example in raising defences to summary judgment." at para 12. </p>

<p>I do not understand the example he gives, how does this undermine a contract?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Say Bob and Rob have a written contract.</p>

<p>Bob becomes unhappy with what Rob does and sues him for breach of contract. Specifically, Bob applies for a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">summary judgment</a> because, in his view, the breach is so clear so that no hearing/trial is needed.</p>

<p>Rob opposes judging the case that way. This is what "defence to summary judgment" is — Rob wants a hearing. He says that the contract was modified orally, and in the light of that modification there is now no breach as Bob alleges, so we need a hearing so that his <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice#Right_to_a_fair_hearing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">right to natural justice</a> is not breached.</p>

<p>The result is that the court has to hold a hearing — instead of deciding the case on the papers. Rob can effectively slow down and tamper with justice by claiming that he and Bob orally agreed to whatever.</p>

<p><em>If</em> the oral modification was not allowed, Rob would not be able to stop the summary judgment by abusing his right to natural justice.</p>

contract-law