Faced with this issue, English courts generally require that certain essential elements of a contract be agreed before it is applied. In fulfilling their obligation to interpret contracts fairly and taking into account the intentions of the parties, the courts will not intervene to “conclude a contract” or “go beyond the terms used”1 Therefore, agreements relating to an agreement have traditionally been declared uncertain, so that they are generally considered unenforceable. It is therefore essential that companies carefully consider, during the first design phase, what is agreed and that there is a risk that conditions will be deemed unworkable. (i) unworkable undertakings or rights resulting from the parties deferring their agreement on contractual terms (both parties are free to accept or not approve) and the parties are often under pressure to reach an agreement quickly and, as such, may leave certain conditions at a later date to “conclude 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. Morris was involved in a sales contract (the “SPA”) for shares of a company. The complainant received approximately $16 million as his first consideration. The OSG also provided for deferred consideration through a provision for benefits for the applicant`s counselling services. The OSG explained that the applicant had “the opportunity” to provide his advisory services between the parties for a period of four years from the close of the SG and “another reasonably agreed period. The complainant provided his services for four years and received approximately $4 million in return, calculated according to a formula agreed to in the ASA. The applicant then sought an “appropriate extension” for the provision of his services, which the respondent refused to do. 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. “agreements to be concluded,” a commercial fact for companies, particularly companies participating in long-term contracts such as research and development agreements in the fields of life sciences or industry, complex technology contracts or energy and resource supply agreements. Often, companies will reach an agreement on the basis of an agreement (explicit or implied) that another agreement will be reached at a later date if the economic reasons and likely conditions of that subsequent agreement have become clearer.