If the purpose of a full contractual clause is to exclude unspoken clauses, it is necessary to ensure that the wording of the entire contractual clause is sufficiently precise for that intention to be clarified. In the case of Exxonmobil, it was the explicit reference to „use“ that allowed one of the parties to invoke the entire contractual clause to prevent the use of terms. In the Al-Hasawi case against Nottingham Forest Football Club Ltd  EWHC 2884 (Ch), the High Court overturned a Masters decision stipulating that a full contractual clause excluded liability for allegations of misrepresentation. The High Court found that the entire agreement clause was not effective in excluding any allegations of misrepresentation, and the parties had not agreed to such an exclusion separately. Even where a full contractual clause explicitly refers to previous assurances, the courts found in AXA Sun Life Services plc/Campbel Martin Ltd that liability for misrepresentation is not excluded2. Instead, clear words are needed to exclude misrepresented people and often a whole agreement clause will not have that effect. The details will therefore be being worked out. However, in the recent case of NF Footbal Investments Ltd and another v NFCC Group Holdings Ltd and another3, the High Court found that a full contractual clause contained in a share purchase agreement consisting solely of a full declaration of contract (i.e., no wording implicated dependence or exclusion from liability) excluded claims of misrepresentation. The decision in NF Footbal is unusual and can be distinguished from the Axa Sun Life case on its facts. The Master in NF Footbal took note of Rix LJ`s decision in Axa Sun Life that an exclusion for misrepresentation must be clearly indicated and that this can be obtained by a non-representation clause or a non-resistance clause, but held that the question of whether a misrepresentation could be excluded depended very heavily on the context and design of the clause in question.
A typical general contractual clause could be: 2. False presentation – A full clause of the contract does not exclude liability for misrepresentation. On the contrary, the parties may and do not take responsibility for a misrepresentation2 by a declaration of non-confidence independent of the entire contractual clause or a clause that the parties did not rely on insurance or statement other than those mentioned in the agreement. An example of a non-confidence clause is that comprehensive contractual clauses are often introduced by signatories in the „Boilerplate“ category. The clauses of the boiler platform are generally uncontested and are often repeated in contracts by the parties in a routine manner, without much negotiation or taking into account the context and background of the contract in question. They are commonly referred to as „standard“ and treated, which sometimes means that they do not always attract as much attention and consideration as the other terms of the contract, especially the terms and conditions. While a full agreement clause can provide very convincing evidence of the parties` intent that a written document contained the entire agreement between the parties, it will ultimately be a question of whether the document actually contains the entire agreement.6 The seller argued that the entire contractual clause against the contractual compensation system must be interpreted in the GSB. In this context, it is clear that the entire contractual clause should exclude liability for misrepresered allegations. In particular, the seller invoked a clause that gave the purchaser the right to seek damages from the seller in respect of losses incurred „from or in connection with“ the amount of the club`s financial liability.
It also cited the fact that the OSG contained a detailed procedure for claiming contractual claims, for example.B.