Increasingly, the English Law on Good Contractual Deals was influenced by its trade relations with Northern Europe, especially since in 1215 Magna Carta had guaranteed traders “safe and secure” entry and entry into England “to buy and sell according to ancient rights and customs, to put an end to all evil tolls”.  In 1266, King Henry III had given the Hansa a charter on trade in England. The “Easterlings”, who came by ship, brought the goods and money that the English called “sterling”, and standard trade rules forming a lex mercatoria, the laws of the merchants. Commercial use has been most influential in seaports such as London, Boston, Hull and King`s Lynn. While the courts are hostile to trade restrictions, a doctrine of consideration has formed, which has required providing something valuable to enforce each commitment.  Some jurisdictions remained skeptical that damages could only be awarded in the event of a no-deal (which was not a sealed agreement).  Other litigation has allowed for an appeal. In Shepton vs. Dogge, a defendant in London, where the municipal courts used to allow claims without a seal agreement, agreed to sell 28 hectares of land to Hoxton. Although the house itself was outside London at that time, a remedy for the deception was granted to Middlesex, but it was essentially based on a failure to transmit the country. But what happens if the parties reach an agreement a posteriori to modify their contract, contrary to what was provided for in the oral non-modification clause, should not the doctrine of freedom of contract give effect to their agreement? As in cardozo J.`s decision in beatty v.
Guggenheim Exploration Co (1919) 225 NY 380 of the New York Court of Appeals, AMEC acted as a concrete subcontractor for two major projects and commissioned Arcadis to carry out certain design work related to those projects in anticipation of a broader agreement between the parties that was not concluded. For many months, the parties had wide-ranging discussions and correspondence (not referred to as “contractual”) and three sets of conditions were proposed. Each set of proposed conditions contained some sort of limitation of Arcadis` liability, but on “radically different terms.” In Rock Advertising Limited v MBW Business Exchange Centres Limited  UKSC 24, the Supreme Court confirmed that an alleged oral amendment to a contract was not valid if it violated a provision of the agreement that does not have an oral amendment. While companies may take some comfort from the fact that there is now greater certainty as to whether such clauses will be maintained, it is important to exercise a certain degree of caution, given that parties who have relied on so-called oral variants can still rely on Estoppel to support the amended agreement. “Those who enter into a contract can cancel it. The clause prohibiting any modification can be modified like any other. The prohibition of oral waiver may itself be dropped. “Any such agreement is terminated by the new one who contradicts you” (Westchester F Ins Co v Earle 33 Mich 143, 153). What is excluded by one act is restored by another. You can expose it at the door; He came back through the window.
Whenever two men come together, no self-imposed restrictions can destroy their power to pull themselves together. « . As a result of the takeover of larger premises (for an increase in fees), Rock was unable to pay for the increased licenses and fell behind. MET exercised its contractual right to exclude Rock from the premises, attempted to terminate the contract and claimed the delay. . . .