https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196997 A later written agreement that expressly settled outstanding claims and materially changed the subject matter, price and performance terms was treated as a substituted contract under the Contract Act. Because the parties intended to wipe out the earlier arrangements, the prior contracts stood discharged by accord and satisfaction, and the arbitration clause in those contracts also ceased to operate. Oral evidence could not be used to vary the written terms, as Section 92 of the Evidence Act barred such reliance. The result was that the suit was not liable to be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. en-us Mon, 18 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:57:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196997 A later written agreement that expressly settled outstanding claims and materially changed the subject matter, price and performance terms was treated as a substituted contract under the Contract Act. Because the parties intended to wipe out the earlier arrangements, the prior contracts stood discharged by accord and satisfaction, and the arbitration clause in those contracts also ceased to operate. Oral evidence could not be used to vary the written terms, as Section 92 of the Evidence Act barred such reliance. The result was that the suit was not liable to be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 18 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196997