0370 270 6000

Inntrepreneur Pub Company v East Crown Ltd

15 September 2000
The issues

The effect of an entire agreement clause on the giving of a collateral warranty

The facts

NB – this case is now relevant to some credit hire cases and is already being used by one or two credit hire companies to argue their way out of the Defendant’s contention “Claimant was told he would not have to pay”).

The decision

An entire agreement cause did not merely render evidence of the giving of a collateral warranty inadmissible – it deprived what would otherwise have been valid collateral warranty of its legal effect.

I am not reporting it in any detail. You can read the case in the Times for yourself if you wish.


NB. However this case does not take into account the operation of U.C.T.A in cases where the consumer is dealing with a commercial entity (which is not the case here) nor does it take into account the interpretative effect of Zoan.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up