If the contractual terms are uncertain or incomplete, the parties do not reach an agreement in the eyes of the law.  An agreement is not a contract and the inability to agree on key issues that may include elements such as price or safety may lead to the failure of the entire contract. However, a court will endeavour to implement commercial contracts where possible by excluding an appropriate design of the contract.  In the case of a real estate sale agreement, if the property cannot be identified with security and there is no consensus between the parties on the price to be paid, there could be no contract between potential home buyers and builders. About 80 years after Mai and Butcher and Hillas/Arcos, the Court of Appeal again considered the issue of security in two appeals that were decided by one year. These cases set out what is considered to be the modern examination of the security of terms in English law. A formulation of the test consists of no less than ten components. This complexity undoubtedly reflects the fact that commercial contracts have become more sophisticated, including those accused of being ”too uncertain”. b) A agrees to sell B 100 tonnes of oil of a given denomination called a commercial item.
There is no uncertainty that the agreement will not be cancelled. A contract would not be vague if it put in place mechanisms to determine its duration. In Damodhar Tukaram Mangalmurtiand /Staat Bombay , the extension clause contained a provision stating that ”subject to as fair and equitable an application as the lessor must decide,” ”the application is subject to such a fair and equitable application.” The clause was not kept vague or uncertain. In Talbot/Talbot , the provision of a will opportunity which, as part of the desire to acquire the businesses in which they live, is an option to be taken for an appropriate assessment, was enforceable. It was proposed that an agreement be too uncertain to be applied if no limitation of the benefit period is expressed or can be inferred from the nature of the case. This does not seem acceptable as a general proposal. A document in favour of a bank that promises to pay a certain amount on a given date or date and a similar monthly amount per subsequent month could not be considered a debt title (Carter v Agra Savings Bank Ltd.), since it did not specify the period for which it was to exist and the amount to be paid.