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. In order to minimize this risk, the parties should provide provisions that act late with the parties where flexibility is required and a significant trade clause cannot be established at the time of the contract. It is also advisable to include « whole contractual clauses » in contracts. Those who discuss with the parties with whom they have contracts should refrain from giving oral assurances during the negotiations, which go beyond the terms of the agreement reached, even though that agreement stipulates that the amendments must be made in writing. The Commercial Court has reviewed the principles of the agreements to be concluded by the main appelal courts of Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum and B J Aviation. One of the fundamental principles that flow from these decisions is that if, in the event of an actual construction of a contract, the parties have reconciled a critical issue in the future (such as the price in a contract for the sale of goods or the provision of services), it is likely that the contract will not be applicable due to uncertainties. Decisions are also taken in favour of the proposition that, if it is satisfied that the parties intend to implement their agreement, the Tribunal should endeavour to implement that intention through the construction or application of a clause. However, the implied clause cannot be inconsistent with the Tribunal`s conception of explicit contractual terms. The Tenant made use of his option to acquire the property, but the landlord refused to appoint an expert and stated that the clause was a simple agreement to accept. The House of Lords found that the pricing mechanisms for the property refund decision constituted a non-essential contractual clause and that, if the agreed-upon machine were to collapse, the Tribunal could replace other pricing machines to ensure the implementation of the agreement. Given that the contract provided that the price was to be determined by the evaluators, it is inevitable that the contract would be a sales contract at an objectively fair and reasonable price.
The applicant initiated proceedings and argued that he was entitled to « an additional period of time during which additional remuneration under the GSA was payable. » The applicant pointed out that the wording used in the GSO (i.e. « having the opportunity ») was binding. The defendant argued that it was not required to grant an extension to the applicant, since the provision is a non-applicable agreement and an agreement must be reached. The defendant also argued that, although it was not required to react reasonably to the extension proposed by the applicant, it had in any case acted reasonably in rejecting it. On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court and held that « for additional time, there must first be another agreement between the parties » since this had been agreed within the OSG. 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 the « very paradigm » of an unenforceable agreement. to give its consent. The court confirmed that there was a distinction between two types of cases.