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. The case also recalls that the courts will only slowly include clauses in a contract if they can be construed as incompatible with an existing contractual system, even if it is necessary to implement the parties` intention to make the contract enforceable. The Commercial Court followed the applicant`s argument that the parties wanted to enter into a binding contract and therefore had to attempt to implement the option agreement. In particular, he indicated that the option agreement was part of a “set of contracts” and that the defendant granted him the options, including the applicant`s subsidiaries that entered into the shipbuilding contracts. The performance of valid contracts is a precondition for the creation of legally binding rights and obligations between executors. However, before moving to detailed final contracts, the parties often enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to agree and define in advance the main conditions of the proposed transaction. The idea is to identify and address all important trade policy issues between the parties, while demonstrating their commitment to the transaction. In another case to the contrary, the Supreme Court held that “the fact that the parties refer to the development of an agreement to put the agreed terms in a more formal form does not preclu herself from the existence of a binding contract.
The Supreme Court also stated that “the parties to the agreement will benefit from the agreement if the terms of the agreement are respected by other means.” In the absence of the above measures, an agreement may also be fully applicable, with clearly defined conditions and appropriate counterparties, but some details to be drawn up by the parties. While the parties intend to respond to an agreement on the absence of words, they often expect uncertainty about their failure to reach an agreement. “agreed agreements” is a concept in which each party asserts that a company by agreement on the basis of an agreement (explicit or tacit) will result in an agreement, that another agreement will be reached at a specific time when the commercial reasons and proposed terms of that subsequent agreement may have become more obvious.