Contract » Contract Formation
Entire Agreement Clauses — The Limits of Prior Negotiations
Extensive pre-contract negotiations, assurances given at clarification meetings, information exchanged in site visits — and then the formal contract is signed with an entire agreement clause. What happens to everything said before?
5 min read · Updated 21/04/2026
![]() |
By Basel Al Najjar Civil Engineering Consultant, DIAC Arbitrator, Tribunal Chairman and Accredited Expert Witness. Over two decades advising UAE contractors, developers and law firms on FIDIC, claims and arbitration. |
In this article
Key takeaway
An entire agreement clause does not automatically exclude liability for misrepresentation. To exclude misrepresentation claims, a clause must do so expressly and in clear terms — and even then, its reasonableness under the governing law may be examined. Contractors who relied on pre-contract assurances must incorporate those assurances as express contract terms before signing.
1. What pre-contract assurances disappear on signature?
Pre-contract negotiations on UAE projects are extensive. Tender clarifications, commercial meetings, site visits, employer briefings, and scope discussions all take place before the formal contract is executed. Parties make statements, give assurances, and exchange information that shapes the contractor’s pricing and programming assumptions. Then the formal contract is signed — and it contains an entire agreement clause.
The entire agreement clause is designed to prevent exactly the scenario that follows: a party cannot, after signing, point to something said or written before signing and claim it forms part of the contract or varies the written terms. This is commercially sensible — it gives both parties certainty about what they have agreed. But it creates a problem when one party made material assurances during negotiations that influenced the other’s decision to contract or its pricing, and those assurances never made it into the signed document.
2. The legal principle and its limits
An entire agreement clause excludes prior representations from the scope of the contract. It prevents a party from arguing that the contract should be read to include, or be qualified by, something said or written before signing. This principle is well established and tribunals generally uphold such clauses.
However, there are significant limits. Under common law systems following the Misrepresentation Act 1967, an entire agreement clause does not automatically exclude liability for misrepresentation — the making of a false statement of fact that induces a contract. To exclude misrepresentation claims, a clause must do so expressly and in clear terms, and even then its reasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (or equivalent local legislation) may be examined.
Leading authority
The key case is Axa Sun Life Services plc v Campbell Martin Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 133, which confirmed that general entire agreement clauses do not exclude misrepresentation claims without specific language to that effect. A clause that merely states the written document is the entire agreement will not prevent a misrepresentation claim — only a clause that also expressly excludes liability for pre-contractual representations will do so.
3. Practical application for employers and contractors
For employers
Any assurances given during the tender process that are intended to be contractually binding must be incorporated into the contract documents. If pre-contract representations are not intended to create obligations, the entire agreement clause should be worded to address this, and any misrepresentation exclusion should be expressly stated and carefully reviewed for enforceability under the governing law of the contract.
For contractors
If representations made during tendering are material to your pricing — access arrangements, programme assumptions, ground condition warranties, utility availability — you must ensure these are incorporated as express contract terms before you sign. An entire agreement clause will not protect you if the employer’s representative said something during a clarification meeting that turned out to be false and that you cannot prove amounted to an actionable misrepresentation.
Lost a pre-contract assurance in the entire agreement clause?
If a material assurance from tendering was excluded from the final contract, there may still be a path through misrepresentation. We advise on when and how to frame such claims at DIAC.
4. Risks on both sides
Contractors who rely on pre-contract assurances without incorporating them into the contract risk finding those assurances excluded by the entire agreement clause. The only available remedy may then be a misrepresentation claim, which requires proof that the statement was one of fact (not opinion or intention), that it was relied upon, and that it induced the contract — a more difficult case to make than a contractual breach claim.
Employers who give assurances during tendering that they cannot or do not fulfil may face misrepresentation claims even where the entire agreement clause appears to exclude them, where the clause is found to be unreasonable or unclear in its scope.
5. Mitigation — preserving what was agreed
Before signing, audit all pre-contract communications and identify any statements or assurances that were material to the contract price or programme. Incorporate any such assurances as express terms of the contract. Ensure the entire agreement clause is clearly worded and, if misrepresentation exclusion is intended, that it is expressed in specific terms and reviewed by counsel for enforceability in the relevant jurisdiction.
- Maintain a tender clarifications register and cross-check items into the contract.
- Require employers to confirm in writing any verbal assurance given at clarification meetings.
- Scrutinise the drafting of the entire agreement clause — a well-drafted clause distinguishes between terms, representations, and warranties.
- Flag to counsel any pre-contract assurance relied upon for pricing but absent from the signed document.
6. Conclusion
Entire agreement clauses provide useful certainty but are not a complete protection. They are ineffective against misrepresentation claims without additional express language, and even then, their enforceability may be challenged. The surest protection is to make the contract say what was actually agreed — and to verify, before signing, that it does.
Related reading
|
Contract Misrepresentation in Construction ContractsWhen pre-contract information is false, the remedies available and how to frame the claim. |
Contract Implied Terms — What the Contract Did Not SayWhen a tribunal will imply a term to fill a gap in the written agreement. |
Contract Contract Interpretation — The Objective ApproachThe principles tribunals apply when reading ambiguous contract language. |
Did what was promised make it into the contract?
Disputes about pre-contract assurances are among the most evidentially sensitive in construction. An early review of tender correspondence often determines whether a misrepresentation claim is viable.
Book a 30-Minute Case Assessment →
Offices in Dubai · Available for instructions across the UAE and GCC
