Three important messages came out of this case – the courts concluded that the seller was bound by the terms of the contract she had made by e-mail; It`s easy to commit to a contract by email. and it is not defensible to say that the emails or appendices had not been read or reflected what was intended. The problem is that when two people exchange emails, their language tends to be more relaxed than when preparing a formal contract. This can lead to ambiguities in what they say, and important details may be missing. That is why there may not be enough security to enter into a contract. There is therefore a theoretical basis for the idea that an agreement on terms in an e-mail, whether formally declared or not, could constitute a legally binding agreement, and this theoretical basis was born in the real world by law. Representations are not binding contractual conditions. However, if they have encouraged your client to buy, they may be entitled to a misrepresentation if it turns out that it is not true. A simple way to do this is to use a simple disclaimer in each email sent, which refers to a potential or perceived transaction. A type is a disclaimer placed at the top of each e-mail, such as.B.: Practical considerations — Contractual terms are governed by a number of cases: the parties may accidentally enter into binding legal contracts by pre-contracting mail. If the intention is to negotiate terms before a formal contract is concluded, it is important that the emails show this very clearly, for example by indicating “contractually” prominently in the spirit or at the top of the email in a bold text printed or highlighted. Only the inclusion of a disclaimer is unlikely, as it is not sufficiently specific and imperceptible.
I have always been a strong advocate that the terms of the contract are as clear as possible when it comes to expressing the intent of their parties. It is equally important, if not more important, to ensure that a binding contract is not created accidentally by what one or more of the parties involved think is and intends to be an informal email exchange. The High Court found that Superdrug`s obligation to purchase annual quantities of product from the producer was clearly accepted.