“. If, according to the actual construction of the words they used in the circumstances in which they used them, the parties intend to agree in the future between themselves on an essential matter such as price or rent – on the basis that it remains free to agree or not to agree on this matter – there is no agreement, that the courts can enforce. In the most recent case of Philip Morris vs. Swanton Care & Community Limited, the Court of Appeal found that a share purchase agreement contained an agreement that was unenforceable to the agreement. The Tribunal had committed to applying Rix LJ`s criteria, but ultimately came to the wrong conclusion. If the treaty is not really skeletal or if it only talks about the intention to agree at some point in the future, it is unlikely to be removed from uncertainty under English law. The above examples concerned situations in which the parties had not indicated the price or remuneration. What will happen if the treaty does not specify exactly what a party must do in terms of performance? In the first instance, if a party has promised to fulfil a certain obligation and the treaty must be clearly legally binding, English law will try to find substance in the obligation, even if it is described in a general way. Durham Tees Valley Airport Ltd v Bmibaby Ltd  EWCA Civ 485 concerned a contract under which an airline had entered into a contract for the `service and flight` of two types of aircraft from an airport for a period of ten years. All fees and payments for services were provided for in the contract.
Nevertheless, the agreement was deemed too uncertain by the judge at first instance. In the absence of a time limit providing for a minimum number of flights over a certain period, the judge noted that the commitments had not been formulated with sufficient precision to be enforceable. “The existence of an arbitration clause can help courts to consider that a contract is sufficiently secure or mature, probably with reference to a commercial and contractual mechanism that can be implemented with the help of experts in this field, by which the parties can settle their dispute in the absence of agreement.” In Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company SA v Octta Crude Oil Refinery AD [EWCA Civ 406], the Court of Appeal examined the authorities and distilled a (non-exhaustive) list of principles to guide any court or arbitrator considering contractual provisions that might appear uncertain or incomplete. The first principle, which characterizes contract law, is that any agreement must be constructed taking into account its own conditions and the circumstances arising therefrom. It always depends on that. Rix L J gave the following guidance (in the version we complete): The Court of Appeal decided that the phrase “as reasonably agreed between Mr. Morris and the buyer” meant that the parties had to agree to it in order for there to be another period of deliberation. .