It is common in employment contracts to include an ‘entire agreement’ clause which provides that the employment contract constitutes the entire understanding between employer and employee in relation to the employment. The Court of Appeal in AXA Sun Life Services plc v Campbell Martin Ltd and others considered the enforceability and breadth of such entire agreement statements contained in agreements between AXA and agents appointed to sell its financial products. On the particular wording of the statement under consideration the Court held that it was ineffective to exclude misrepresentations and terms implied to give the agreement business efficacy. However it was effective to exclude collateral warranties and other implied terms. Whilst the Court’s decision turned on the wording of the particular statement, it underlines the fact that broad statements are unlikely to cover misrepresentation and business efficacy implied terms. Such clauses are not ‘boilerplate’ and should be tailored to the particular circumstances. If it is intended to exclude liability for misrepresentation then that should be specifically included in the wording. Further, an employer will not always wish to exclude business efficacy implied terms since these may be equally beneficial to the employer as to the employee.