The ruling underscored the long-term nature of the agreement (for further discussions on long-term contracts see our prior customer warning. The same approach would not necessarily be adopted with respect to a short-term contract if neither party has essentially fulfilled its obligations or if the contract does not require significant cooperation and investment between the two parties. Under Section 29, the agreement is unsusclused if its conditions are vague and uncertain and therefore cannot be determined. Figure: A agrees to sell a ton of oil. The agreement is inconclusive to uncertainty, as the nature of the oil envisaged cannot be determined. The parties entered into a sale in 1930, but broke down the following year. The High Court found that its agreement for 1931 was effectively enforceable, although it was expressed in the form of a skeleton. The products for sale had to be fair specifications (as in the previous year), which a court was able to find using expert evidence. The 1931 plan was characterized as an option that could be exercised immediately. It was therefore not a future agreement or an agreement to accept. The price would be reasonable without agreement. This, of course, is now the status of the Property Sales Act in 1979 (section 8) or the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (section 15, paragraph 1), depending on whether the contract is for goods or services.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal did not hesitate (when approving the trial decision) with a linear calculation, i.e. that „if the funds are deducted on a given day between the day after the investment and the day that falls three years after that date, the amount of recovery is the Commission`s share that reflects the time that has elapsed between those two dates.“ Our own experience is that the courts are very hard to make sense of treaties that, at first glance, seem vague or contradictory. This approach applies to both „home“ agreements and documents between legal advisors. The starting point will usually be that words should have meaning, otherwise why contain? The likelihood that a court will ignore certain parts or all parts of a contract as uncertain is generally quite low. The Openwork case only reinforces this position.