However, regardless of the type of clause contained in a treaty, the clause can only be applied if it is not contrary to existing law. The limitation clause is a good example; Courts may be reluctant to impose a clause that deprives a party of rights. Although this was a Masters` decision to seek a summary judgment, it highlights the dangers of a rigid approach to the interpretation of standard boilerplate clauses. As with any other clause, they are always interpreted within the framework of the entire contract. However, during the design phase, it is risky to rely on the court to take a more holistic view of the interpretation of the standard boilerplate provisions (as shown by the fact that the decision was overturned on appeal in November 2018). It is best to include the default exclusion of misrepresentations and avoid satellite disputes. Because it can be difficult to rewrite contract clauses from the bottom up, companies like JotForm boilerplate incorporate language into their contract templates that you can adapt to your needs. If you`re unsure of the legality of something in your contract, including clauses, it`s best to consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision and confirmed that the non-allocation clause was an exclusion clause in Division 3. The court`s approach was very simple: would the owner have assumed any responsibility for misrepresented representations, if not for the clause, under the Misrepresentation Act? The answer was yes. At first glance, therefore, the clause was such that it excluded liability and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.

The fact that the clause had contractual effect (which prevents the tenant from claiming that insurance had been given because the tenant had agreed that nothing had been said by the lessor should be considered a representation) made no difference. Section 3 remained in force. The adequacy assessment was therefore applied. The owner had argued that the clause was reasonable on the basis that the parties were legally represented, through the same bargaining power, and that the parties did not enter into the owner`s standard terms. The trial judge accepted these facts, but did not find them conclusive.