Changes

This appeal arose from a decision of the High Court which held that an agreement for the sale and purchase of shares (“SPA”) in a public-listed company had been orally rescinded by mutual agreement. Upon further analysis of the issues of the appeal, the Singapore Court of Appeal found that a no-oral modification (“NOM clause”) in the SPA did not apply to an oral rescission of the SPA itself but instead, the NOM clause only prevented the “variation, supplement, deletion or replacement” of any term of the SPA unless made in writing and signed by or on behalf of all parties. The appeal was dismissed.

'''Background'''