However, there are certain circumstances in which the courts will force an agreement to be accepted. This gives the author of the treaty a difficulty. The courts „will not apply an agreement to accept.“ The classic example of the application of this principle is the case of, which was decided in 1975. A party was a builder; the other was a developer. The developer wanted to develop land, but he had a problem with the financing of the project. The owner had access to the money. He wrote a letter to the developer, who concluded that at trial, the High Court found that the applicant had an enforceable right to counsel for the first four years, but that he had no such right for another period. The obligation on the parties to agree on the length of an additional period was not applicable, as it was an agreement that did not contain a „mechanism“ or „objective standard“ for the Tribunal to „conclude“ on the duration of the extension. The applicant issued proceedings in April 2014. The defendant refused the option agreement and waived it, and she is entitled to that contract and has terminated that contract. She claimed damages for loss of earnings.

The defendant argued that the option agreement was not in effect because of the uncertainty of its terms. It relied on its argument as „agreed upon by mutual agreement“ and argued that the contract had not been concluded because delivery dates, an essential issue, had not been agreed between the parties and should instead be agreed in the future. In other words, the option agreement was an unenforceable „agree agreement.“ It also submitted that it was not renouncing or renouncing the option agreement. There is no concept of „one size fits all“ that the courts can invoke, as they will make their decision on enforceable force on the basis of their interpretation of the agreement as a whole. However, if a clause gives the parties the opportunity to accept or object at a later date, whether reasonable or not, the parties should consider that the courts will apply such a clause only slowly. The Tribunal noted the distinction between an agreement that uses the best efforts to achieve a given outcome and an agreement to leverage the best efforts to reach agreement on an essential clause of a contract.