In Teekay Tankers v STX Offshore – Shipbuilding  EWHC 253 (Comm), the High Court considered the cancellation of an option agreement on the construction of tankers for reasons of uncertainty. There are several important takeaways for anyone who wants to make sure their approval is enforceable in the future. Therefore, you should keep in mind that if a party who has agreed to resolve a dispute with the intent of fair negotiation before resorting to either litigation or arbitration, resorts to litigation or arbitration without conducting negotiations in good faith, the innocent party is free to suspend the exercise of the jurisdiction in court. until the obligations imposed by the agreement are fulfilled in good faith. Parties who wish to establish business relationships often want to write their first thoughts on such a relationship in the scenario. This can take the form of tentative agreements between them. The most common form of these interim agreements, which has become a darling of the economy, is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). It is customary for parties to trade agreements to contain clauses requiring them to negotiate in good faith the settlement of disputes that arise between them during the execution of a contract before resorting to arbitration or litigation. The objective is to ensure that, in most cases where treaties continue, the parties seek in good faith to reach an agreement without having a significant impact on the continuation of the treaty.” The agreement, which requires the parties to negotiate in good faith, is also called “agreement to be agreed.” The Commercial Court has reviewed the principles of the agreements to be concluded by the main appelal courts of Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum and B J Aviation. One of the fundamental principles that flow from these decisions is that if, in the event of an actual construction of a contract, the parties have reconciled a critical issue in the future (such as the price in a contract for the sale of goods or the provision of services), it is likely that the contract will not be applicable due to uncertainties. Decisions are also taken in favour of the proposition that, if it is satisfied that the parties intend to implement their agreement, the Tribunal should endeavour to implement that intention through the construction or application of a clause.
However, the implied clause cannot be inconsistent with the Tribunal`s conception of explicit contractual terms. The parties to the Delgardo case were involved in legal action. To settle the dispute, they agreed to buy and sell a business for $75,000, with a decrease of $3,000 and $1,000 in monthly payments thereafter. They did not agree on other terms of purchase, but agreed in writing to work together in good faith to reach agreement on these terms in the future.