It is a very simple situation. If the form of the documents to be executed is agreed, it is a simple contractual obligation like any other. The parties have agreed not to agree in the future, but simply to execute documents in the agreed form. The case may indicate that some courts are willing to play a more interventionist role in contractual relations between the parties. However, we are still a long way from saying that the treaty can still be given the flexibility that the parties sometimes want. If an agreement on the agreement is included in the treaty, it may be necessary to add appropriate additional provisions to reflect the principles that the courts were willing to enforce such an agreement. This will at least give him a sporting chance to work. Scenario 5: The parties entered into a binding agreement with an agreement to execute other documents The claimant used “Option One” by letter of 2 October 2013. In the end, no delivery date was agreed and the parties did not enter into shipbuilding contracts for the four tankers under the option. Morris is a useful reminder of the distinction between the courts with respect to agreements: in this article, following our earlier update, we examine the impact of the recent case of Morris v Swanton Care & Community Ltd (Morris) 2, in which the applicant wished to rely on a contractual option allowing him to provide additional services for “an additional period, which must be reasonably agreed”, as the claimant is the basis for a claim for damages. Finally, we highlight some points of wording that can be drawn from the judicial review of agreements. An agreement may be concluded if an agreement contains commitments in the future to conclude a subsequent agreement the terms of which are not certain at the time of the initial agreement.
As a result, such agreements often lack sufficient security to constitute a legally enforceable treaty – but what constitutes sufficient security can be difficult to determine. . . .