The court preferred the decision in World Online and decided that in principle, a contract containing a clause can be amended in writing by oral agreement or by conduct. However, the same judge, who sat before the Court of Appeal in World Online Telecom Ltd v. I-Way Ltd  EWCA Civ 413 (and was apparently unaware of his advance ruling at United Bank), stated, however, that the question of whether the parties could repeal a clause in a written agreement excluded any unwritten amendment to the contract (in this case). No supplement, supplement or modification of this Agreement shall be effective unless it has been signed in writing and by and on behalf of both Parties”) has been sufficiently unexplained to be able to make a summary finding. He said: “In a case like this, the parties have made their own law through contracts and can in principle delete or redo it.” Either way, it will be a question of fact. The oral agreement or conduct of the parties to a contract containing such a clause “may result in a separate and independent contract which essentially results in a deviation from the written contract”. While there is always a provision for changes in a contract, a party cannot simply wake up on a beautiful morning and make the desired changes. For the changes to be valid, both parties must approve them. If one of them does not accept the modifications, they are not enforceable. The changes in force are generally enforced and are legally binding under the law.
Since the decision was of such importance, the three judges of the Court of Appeal ruled on it. These difficulties may be much greater if they have accepted a provision requiring a formal amendment. ». .