In his judgement Lord Hodge noted that
For completeness, I record that Du Pont did not advance the argument set out in their defences that their emails contained a standard disclaimer that the email did not constitute a contractual offer or acceptance unless it was designated that an e-contract was intended. Such an argument would have been inconsistent with Mr Cormack's approach and would have been met by the response that it was the attached proposal rather than the email which was the offer document.Black comments that
Wording along similar lines will often be found on email disclaimers, despite the fact that many senders will be unaware of it, and many recipients will fail to read it. Nonetheless, since the parties are entitled to determine the moment of contract formation, by demonstrating when they objectively intended to conclude a contract, it is arguable that the use of an email disclaimer on these terms should be effective in preventing a contract from being concluded.
... courts may not be prepared to accept email disclaimer wording unless it explicitly covers the facts at issue. Reliance on general wording that the contents of the email are not contractually binding may be insufficient where draft contracts or proposal documents are appended as attachments, and the contract is arguably concluded on those terms.
