Commercial common sense cannot be used to override the clear and unambiguous language of a contractual term when construing its meaning.
Contract — Formation and Interpretation
A 'no oral modification' clause is legally effective, so any purported oral variation of a contract containing such a clause is unenforceable.
Implied terms require strict business necessity or obviousness, rejecting the broader 'reasonable and equitable' Belize Telecom formulation.
Where contractual language is ambiguous, courts should prefer the construction consistent with business common sense.
Get a detailed analysis of Arnold v Britton and how it applies to your situation.
Explain Arnold v Britton