The case may indicate the willingness of some courts to play a more interventionist role in contractual relations between the parties. Nevertheless, we are still far from saying that the treaty can still benefit from the flexibility that the parties sometimes wish for. Where an agreement is included in the contract, it may be necessary to add appropriate additional provisions to reflect the principles by which the courts were willing to apply such an agreement. This will at least give him a sporting chance to work. The parties are often under pressure to reach an agreement quickly and can therefore use a later agreement to « achieve the agreement ». Morris illustrates the risks associated with this approach and how saving time in development can lead to costly legal disputes that can be extremely troublesome for a company, especially if the party wants to rely on the concept in question. This decision is an example of the view that where an essential purpose of a contract is considered unenforceable by the parties who are to be the subject of a future agreement, the contract may be deemed unenforceable in the event of a dispute. It should be noted that in this case, the Tribunal found that the parties intended to execute the contract and was intended to terminate their negotiations, but that it was still unable to do so. An important commercial concept of the transaction is probably an essential issue, for example.B. price or delivery times in this case. (i) inoperable undertakings or rights resulting from the parties` postponement of the contractual terms agreement (both parties are free to accept or not to give their consent) and, in the appeal process, the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court and found that « for an additional period of time, there must first be another agreement between the parties » , as this was agreed in the G.S.O. Accordingly, both parties were free to agree or argue over the duration of an extension, if any, without the duty to negotiate in good faith or to disable their own business interests (provided that the underlying contract did not indicate the opposite of what it did not).3 The term was « very paradigm » of an unenforceable agreement to accept.
The applicant, an oil operator, entered into an option contract with the defendant, a shipbuilder. The agreement gave the applicant three options, each for an order for four tankers. It provided that, in the event of an option exercised, delivery dates between the parties would be « agreed upon by mutual agreement, » but the defendant « will do its best to have a delivery » in 2016 for Option 1 and 2017 for The Two and Three Tankers. It also provided for the parties to enter into shipbuilding contracts within 10 days of the exercise of an option. The parties and their subsidiaries have also entered into other agreements, including four shipbuilding contracts that each order a tanker.