In Teekay Tankers v STX Offshore & Shipbuilding  EWHC 253 (Comm), the High Court considered whether an option agreement on tanker construction was void due to uncertainty. The idea that an agreement is a valid contract can be supported by a few.4 min of reading The contract is safe enough to be enforceable When english courts are faced with this issue, English courts generally require that certain essential elements of a contract be agreed before performing it. In fulfilling their duty to interpret contracts fairly and with respect to the intentions of the parties, courts will not intervene to “enter into a contract” or “go beyond the words used”.1 Therefore, agreements have traditionally been considered null and void due to uncertainty, so they are generally deemed unenforceable. It is therefore crucial that companies carefully consider what is agreed and what conditions are considered unenforceable in the first phase of the project. By letter of 2 October 2013, the applicant exercised the `first option`. However, no delivery date has been agreed and the parties have not entered into shipbuilding contracts for the four tankers under the option. In order to determine whether an agreement is an unenforceable agreement, it should be noted that: The applicant has not disputed that delivery dates are a key issue. However, it argued that the parties could not intend that the option agreement would not be binding and that it contained an effective mechanism for setting delivery dates without the need for a future agreement. The applicant raised the latter point on the basis of two alternative implicit clauses. His main argument was that the delivery date was the earliest date the defendant had offered to the best of his ability in 2016 (first option) or 2017 (options two and three), and if not the earliest date he could offer with his best efforts. In the alternative, it argued that the date of delivery was an objectively reasonable date to the best of its ability in the light of the defendant`s obligation to be determined by the Court whether it had not agreed. There is still something to be determined, but this provision should not depend on the consent of the parties, everything necessary is regulated and leaves nothing to be settled by agreement between the parties, and the judgment confirms that agreements can be binding if the absence of details is not so important for the operation of the contract, that the subject matter is not easily identifiable and that the parties intended to establish legal relationships despite a lack of certainty.
Contracts arise when an obligation is concluded on the basis of a promise made by one of the parties. In order to be legally binding as a contract, a promise must be exchanged for appropriate consideration. There are two different theories or definitions of consideration: the bargain consideration theory and the benefit-harm consideration theory. It is generally stated that the agreements to be agreed are not enforceable. However, the courts have always held that this is an oversimplification. On the contrary, an enforceable contract is formed when the parties have agreed on all the important conditions – even if they do not “officially” issue a formal document containing these essential conditions until a later date. It is not necessarily the signing of a document that constitutes a contract, but the fact that an agreement has been reached. However, the courts will take note if the parties have made it clear that they do not intend to enter into a binding contract until a particular document has been issued. In addition, an agreement is unenforceable. In California, the distinction between a final agreement and an agreement depends on the objective intent of the parties.
When an agreement is in writing, the courts determine the intention of the parties by the clear meaning of the words in the instrument. An agreement on the agreement should not be confused with a negotiation agreement, because although the former is unenforceable, the latter can sometimes be. An example of this in principle, but not in fact (since the case was lost due to another problem), was Copeland v. Baskin Robbins, USA. Many agreements contain obligations for other parties to enter into another agreement in the future, the terms of which are not always certain at the moment. In January 2016, the Court of Appeal again considered the extent to which such an agreement is enforceable. The court stressed the difference between an agreement to make every effort to achieve a certain result and an agreement to make every effort to reach agreement on an essential clause of a contract […].