“Although representations are referred to, there is nothing in the clause to indicate that it rejects the right to misrepresent representations… I believe that clear words are needed to exclude liability for negligent misrepresentation, and that this clause does not contain such language. Therefore, AXA`s comprehensive contractual clause did not exclude liability for all misrepresentations. Therefore, in order to exclude liability for misrepresentations, it is necessary to include clear words to that effect in the corresponding clause. If a buyer is able to assert a right to a misrepresentation or even another unauthorized claim, the remedies available to him are likely to be more advantageous than a claim in the contract. The sales contract generally contains provisions relating to the protection of the seller, but it is not possible for such protection measures to relate to allegations of misrepresentation. If the seller is able to do so, he should avoid, explicitly or implicitly, statements, for example. B of the formulations of the sales contract that could be construed as insurance, such as the indication that the buyer relies on certain statements from the seller for the conclusion of the agreement. The set of contractual clauses necessarily varies according to the specific needs of the party publishing them, but they generally contain the following: the first reason was that the construction contract covered the purpose of the construction of the barge, but did not cover the purpose of the pier. The clause could be effective in excluding any additional clause relating to the construction of the barge, but it could not exclude the agreement on another object. Simple and general, in order to make a false submission, a complainant must prove that there was a misrepresentation of facts or laws intended to induce the other party to enter into a contract for which the applicant suffered a loss. Stanley Burton LJ examined in more detail the alleged security guarantees and unspoken conditions. The so-called unspoken clauses were not within the contractual clause as a whole because, if proven, they would be essential elements of the agreement and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of the party (i), i.e.
“this agreement and the timetables and documents mentioned in it”. Nor would they be “ahead” of the agreement.