Contract law takes a minimalist approach when it comes to a clause, taking into account the choice that is not greater than what is necessary, taking into account the contract between the parties and the relevant context of the agreement, including the commercial framework in which the contract was entered into. The minimalist approach means that the involvement of a clause in a contract can only take place when necessary, and then only of what is necessary and no longer. The use of the word “option,” that is, a right contrary to the obligation to provide, did not help the applicant, who was still too uncertain to apply. The Court of Appeal also found that the word “reasonable” had been used to dictate how the parties should reach an agreement and not to compel them to a reasonable period of time. In addition, the factors identified by the applicant to assist the Tribunal in assessing the period were all economic factors that the parties, not the Tribunal, had to consider in their hearings. Therefore, even if the deadline had required the parties to agree on an appropriate extension, this would not have been applicable in the absence of an objective reference criterion in the GSO (or in the completion of the initial period) until the extension period would be set. The applicant, an oil operator, entered into an option contract with the defendant, a shipbuilder. The agreement gave the applicant three options, each for an order for four tankers. It provided that, in the event of an option exercised, delivery dates between the parties would be “agreed upon by mutual agreement,” but the defendant “will do its best to have a delivery” in 2016 for Option 1 and 2017 for The Two and Three Tankers. It also provided for the parties to enter into shipbuilding contracts within 10 days of the exercise of an option.
The parties and their subsidiaries have also entered into other agreements, including four shipbuilding contracts that each order a tanker. Overall, the question of whether the text of a contract or future agreement indicates the binding intent of the parties is often narrow. Otherwise, you may consider an agreement in the future, but you are not yet sure you want to hire it. Therefore, you should design the contract and clauses so that the contract does not apply. As a general rule, do not sign a pre-agreement without first obtaining appropriate legal advice or without conditions of agreement with the terms and conditions of the correspondence, unless you are prepared to be bound by it. An agreement is an attempt to impose a future agreement between the parties. This is useful if the parties want to cooperate in the future, but are not yet uncertain about concrete details. In a contractual dispute, the court will ask whether the parties wished to be bound by a future agreement. In order to determine your intention, the Tribunal analyzes the specific text of a contract. Therefore, you should develop your future agreement in order to agree in a way that shows your intention to meet the terms and conditions. At first, it seems paradoxical: how can a party know what it will accept in the future if it does not know what it is prepared to do now? However, some trade agreements contain elements that should be negotiated at a later date.