Select Page

If the parties do indeed begin to cooperate, the terms can become a legally binding contract, regardless of whether the consequence is contemplated or not. When deciding whether words or written communications constitute a legally binding contract, there must be at least two communications: offer and acceptance. In cases of economic law, the courts do not easily accept that a company undertakes to conclude an agreement that it considers unfair or contains inappropriate clauses. The contracts to be negotiated are too uncertain to have binding force. Courts say that the parties to a contract are the best assessment of the economic fairness of a proposed contract. Companies are also the best judge to decide whether the terms of an agreement are appropriate – before they commit to it. There is a growing sense that the economy experienced a turnaround in 2009 and that there could be real signs of recovery in 2010, with a recovery in most sectors and a corresponding increase in M&A activity. It is understandable that this optimism is characterized by a degree of caution that will be reflected in the way the parties negotiate. Two of the best-known textbooks on the art of negotiation are “Getting Past No” (William Ury – The Bantam Dell Publishing Group) and “Getting to Yes”. (Roger Fisher, William Ury, Bruce Patton, 2nd Ed Penguin) However, the parties often find themselves between these two measures: although they do not openly contradict each other on one point, they ask themselves whether they agree or not and, if so, what their agreement is.

You agree to accept, or at least not oppose. They are, so to speak, “fixed to perhaps”. This is, of course, a practical commercial solution to the problem. However, from a legal point of view, the uncertainty inherent in these agreements can pose serious problems if the agreement is ever implemented. For example, a statement of intent is often used by parties who wish to record certain preliminary discussions to ensure that they are both on the same side so far, but deliberately do not want to engage in a binding contract yet. A standard contract is a prepared contract in which most of the conditions are set in advance with little or no negotiations between the parties. These contracts are usually printed with few spaces to add names, signatures, dates, etc. If we demean the treaty to its simplest definition, a valid treaty (or binding treaty) is actually just an enforceable promise. The process of concluding a legally binding treaty may seem simple, but you need to ensure that the basics of forming contracts are met. If they are not, there can be trouble. Whether or not a legally binding agreement exists depends on the existence of all the elements of a contractual relationship.

If this is the case, the document could be an “interim contract” until the conclusion of a full formal agreement or a simple contract in its current form. If all the elements are not there, the pre-contractual documents can simply be an agreement and such an agreement is not legally binding. In general, a contract is considered binding if it contains all these elements and does not contain invalid problems that could lead to things such as unacceptable influence, coercion or coercion. “If the parties have demonstrated their intention to be contractually engaged, even if they postpone the discussion on one or some aspects of the transaction, the Tribunal will recognize a contract, unless what remains to be done is not only important, but essential in the sense that, without it, the contract is too uncertain or incomplete, To be applied. Before the conclusion of the contract, it is possible to make statements, there may be misunderstandings that undermine the legally binding nature of the contract.. . .