The Effectiveness Of Entire Agreement Clauses: Principles And Exceptions

Davies is a law firm focused on high-stakes matters. Committed to achieving superior outcomes for our clients, we are consistently at the heart of their most complex deals and cases. With offices in Toronto, Montréal and New York, our capabilities extend seamlessly to every continent. Visit us at www.dwpv.com.

Entire agreement clauses are commonly found in various types of commercial agreements. These clauses often provide that: (i) the contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of the contract, (ii) the contract supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations and discussions, and (iii) there are no conditions, representations or warranties, expressed or implied, other than those included in the contract.

The purpose of entire agreement clauses is to maintain the certainty of commercial transactions by limiting the source of the parties' obligations and to prevent reliance by a party on pre-contractual verbal representations, statements or terms that are not incorporated in the contract.

The validity of entire agreement clauses has repeatedly been recognized by the courts in Québec who have held that these clauses constitute an admission by the parties that they are not bound by any other agreement or understanding. It is important to note, however, that Québec courts have also recognized that there are exceptions to the rule and that, under certain circumstances, a court may consider evidence of pre-contractual representations.

In the recent case of 9183-7831 Québec inc. v. Location Faubourg Boisbriand inc. ("Boisbriand"), 2011 QCCS 5304, the dispute centered on a commercial lease and the landlord's obligations under such lease. The tenant attempted to lead evidence of pre-contractual discussions and the landlord objected to the admissibility of this evidence on the basis of an entire agreement clause in the lease. The Québec Superior Court listed the following circumstances where a court will consider extrinsic evidence notwithstanding an entire agreement clause:

1. In the event of error;
2. In the event of fraud;
3. When there have been misrepresentations;
4. In a consumer contract;
5. In contracts contrary to public order;
6. To interpret an ambiguous clause in a contract and determine the common intent of the parties.

Given that none of the above exceptions applied in Boisbriand, the Court maintained the landlord's objection and refused to take into account any alleged pre-contractual representations. Ultimately, the Court held that the parties were governed by the terms of their written agreement and dismissed the tenant's claims based on alleged promises and terms that were not reflected in the lease.

The Boisbriand decision serves as a useful reminder that while entire agreement clauses will not always prevent a court from examining evidence outside of the contract, they are often effective tools in limiting the source of parties' obligations to what is provided for in the "four corners" of their agreement.

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.