Henderson v Arthur [1907] 1 KB 10 is a landmark English contract law case that reinforces the parol evidence rule, a principle asserting that when parties formalize their agreement in writing, prior oral agreements cannot alter or contradict the written terms.
| Case Name: Henderson v Arthur |
| Citation: [1907] 1 KB 10 |
| Court: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) |
| Parties: Henderson (landlord) and Arthur (tenant) |
| Subject: Lease of a theatre |
| Area of Law: Contract Law – Parol Evidence Rule, Terms in a Contract |
Facts – Henderson v Arthur
Mr. Henderson leased a theatre to Mr. Arthur. The written lease stipulated that rent was to be paid quarterly in advance. However, before signing, the parties had orally agreed that Henderson would accept Arthur’s debts as rent payments. When Arthur failed to pay rent as per the written agreement, Henderson sued. Arthur contended that the prior oral agreement modified the payment terms.
Legal Issue
Could the previous oral agreement be used to modify the terms of the subsequent written contract?
Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeal decided in favor of Henderson, holding that the written contract superseded all prior agreements. The court emphasized that the written lease was the definitive record of the parties’ agreement, and therefore, the prior oral agreement was not admissible.
Legal Significance (Henderson v Arthur)
Henderson v Arthur is a seminal case illustrating the parol evidence rule, which maintains that when a contract is in writing and intended as the final agreement, extrinsic evidence such as prior or contemporaneous oral agreements cannot contradict its terms. This rule promotes legal certainty and respects the sanctity of written contracts.
List of references:
- https://www.projectsassociates.com/post/challenges-of-parol-evidence-in-construction-contracts-benefits-and-failures
- https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/henderson-v-arthur.php
- https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/explaining-the-parol-evidence-rule-and-its-exceptions-to-the-rule-contract-law-essay.php
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
MORE FROM CONTRACT LAW:
- Van den Esschert v Chappell [1960]: Oral Terms in Contracts
- Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) with its precedent case
- Summergreene v Parker [1950] HCA 13: Contract Not Concluded
Ruchi is a legal research writer with an academic background in CA, MBA (Finance), and M.Com. She specializes in digesting and summarizing complex judicial decisions into clear and structured case notes for students and legal professionals.