However, there are certain circumstances in which the courts will enforce an agreement on the agreement. There is no “single concept” to rely on, since the courts will make their decision on applicability on the basis of their interpretation of the agreement as a whole. However, if a time limit gives the parties the opportunity to agree or disagree at a future stage, whether reasonable or not, the parties should expect the courts to impose such a time limit only slowly. At the contract conclusion stage, leaving important issues for future negotiations may mean that you only have one agreement to agree instead of a binding commitment. But what is the situation if you include in the agreement an explicit obligation to renegotiate certain conditions during the term of the contract? This can often be prudent in the case of a long-term contract where circumstances may change during the term of the contract in a way that the parties cannot foresee. Or, if you conclude the treaty, you may be aware of a future event – such as Brexit or the planned withdrawal from LIBOR – that may require renegotiation of the relevant clauses as soon as the alternatives are clear. How can you design a renegotiation obligation so that it has the best chance of being enforceable if you have to rely on it? A recent case, Associated British Ports v. Tata Steel UK Limited  EWHC 694 (Ch), provides useful instructions. For a contract to be binding, its terms must be sufficiently clear for the court to give them practical meaning and, in particular, the provisions must be applicable without further agreement between the parties. The parties to the Delgardo case were involved in a complaint. To settle the dispute, they agreed to buy and sell a business for 75,000 $US, with 3,000 $US and 1,000 $US in payments thereafter. They did not agree on other terms of purchase, but agreed in writing to cooperate in good faith to agree on these terms in the future.
The future came and when the parties discussed and negotiated these additional terms, they could not reach an agreement. One party argued that there was an agreement on the purchase and sale of the business; The other said no agreement had been reached. “Agreements to agree” is an economic fact for companies, especially for those participating in long.B term contracts, such as research and development agreements in the fields of life sciences or industry, complex technological contracts or energy and resource supply agreements. Companies often enter into an agreement on the basis of an agreement (express or implied) that another agreement will be concluded at a later date, where the business justification and the terms of that subsequent agreement could be clarified. Instead of negotiating their contractual agreement provided for at the time of the initial conclusion of the contract, the parties simply agree that some or all of the contractual terms of this agreement will be set in the future. The applicant proceeded to proceedings and argued that he was entitled to an `additional period within which he must be paid`, an additional earn-out consideration under the SPA. . . .