(a) Where a written contract contains a clause stating that the document contains all the contractual conditions („merger clause“, „comprehensive contractual clause“), all prior declarations, commitments or agreements not contained in the document are not part of the treaty. „This letter is understood and shall be the final expression of the agreement concluded by the parties and constitutes a complete and exclusive statement of the relevant terms, which replaces all prior or written oral or written agreements or assurances and any other communication between the parties concerning the subject matter of this agreement.“; In the case of Von Mears Ltd v Shoreline Housing Partnership Ltd, a social housing lessor (Shoreline) entered into an agreement where mears (a maintenance company) would maintain Shoreline`s real estate. Mears began working for the owner six months before the contract was signed. Mears` labour cost calculations were based on a price list different from the formula of the signed contract. Subsequently, it turned out that the price list did not work and that the parties agreed on a new composite code system. Mears did the billing and was paid according to the new composite code. However, there are many restrictions on the effectiveness of entire contractual clauses. For example, where two (or more) contradictory agreements that replace each other are drawn up by the same party, the non-draftsman may invoke the doctrine of contra proferentem to determine which agreement is binding on the disputed controversy. 1. Implied conditions – A full contractual clause does not exclude implied conditions in general. If a party wishes to exclude the implied terms of a contract, this should be done through a separate exclusion clause, such as: „This instrument contains the entire agreement of the parties on the subject matter of the contract and there are no other promises, assurances, warranties, uses or transactions that affect it“.

In theory, several agreements could be simultaneous, so it is not clear which one replaces the other: (a) when different representatives of the same entity simultaneously negotiate an agreement on the same business. For example, a real estate agency could accidentally sell the same house to different buyers at the same time. (b) if, at the time of signing a contract, the parties conclude other (oral) agreements or simultaneously sign several related contracts. This Agreement constitutes, together with the Transaction Documents, the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to all matters referred to in this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that this agreement was negotiated on the basis of which: what will happen if other agreements contain this clause (that it replaces all other agreements)? Does this not have the effect of replacing several agreements? I came across this kind of clause and found that it was quite common. I understand the party that says that an agreement replaces all previous agreements, but the clause is roughly as follows: the purpose of this type of clause is to ensure that the conditions governing the parties` obligations and intentions are set out in a single contractual document. . . .