The applicant issued proceedings in April 2014. The defendant refused the option agreement and waived it, and she is entitled to that contract and has terminated that contract. She claimed damages for loss of earnings. The defendant argued that the option agreement was not in effect because of the uncertainty of its terms. It relied on its argument as „agreed upon by mutual agreement“ and argued that the contract had not been concluded because delivery dates, an essential issue, had not been agreed between the parties and should instead be agreed in the future. In other words, the option agreement was an unenforceable „agree agreement.“ It also submitted that it was not renouncing or renouncing the option agreement. There is no concept of „one size fits all“ that the courts can invoke, as they will make their decision on enforceable force on the basis of their interpretation of the agreement as a whole. However, if a clause gives the parties the opportunity to accept or object at a later date, whether reasonable or not, the parties should consider that the courts will apply such a clause only slowly. I do not need to tell you that this invites uncertainty in your business relationships. But how uncertain is an agreement overflowing with future promises that it is really not an agreement? The applicant does not dispute that delivery dates are an essential issue. However, the parties could not have foreseen that the option agreement was non-binding and they also contained an effective mechanism for determining delivery dates, without the need for an agreement in the future.
The applicant argued that the latter point was based on two other implied terms. Its main case was the delivery date was the earliest date that the defendant with his best efforts in 2016 (option 1) or 2017 (options two and three) and failing that, the earliest date they could offer with his best efforts. Furthermore, it argued that the delivery date was objectively appropriate if the defendant`s undertaking was taken into account, given the defendant`s obligation, which must be determined by the court if it is not agreed. still to be decided, but this determination must not depend on the agreement of the parties In this article, we examine, as a result of our earlier update of the case, the effects of the recent Court of Appeal case of Morris/Swanton Care – Community Ltd (Morris),2 in which the applicant attempted to invoke a contractual option allowing him to provide additional services for an additional period that must reasonably be agreed as a basis for compensation. Finally, a number of wording points can be drawn from the judicial treatment of the agreements to be agreed upon. all that is necessary and leaves nothing settled by agreement between the parties, and if the original contract is incomplete, because essential provisions governing the contractual relationship have not been settled or agreed upon; or the contract is too general or uncertain to be valid in itself and depends on the conclusion of a formal contract; or the understanding or intent of the parties, even if there is no uncertainty as to the terms of their agreement, that their legal obligations are deferred until a formal contract has been approved and executed, the initial or provisional agreement cannot constitute an enforceable contract.