An agreement may be uncertain, either because the conditions it contains are excessive or vague, or because it is incomplete. The general rule is that if the terms of an agreement are vague or indeterminate and cannot be established with sufficient certainty of the parties` intent, then there is no enforceable contract that is legally applicable. In general, the Court of Justice should endeavour to give some weight to the contractual clauses agreed upon by the parties, if at all possible. The following explanations have been accepted in previous cases. The degree of security required to create commitments depends on whether the transaction remains fully enforceable or independent of the party or has been negotiated. Whether the agreement was executed in whole or in part by a party, in whole or in part, the performance of the performance may itself lead to the conclusion that, as in Hart/Hart, the agreement is binding [8]. In the event of agreement on all the essential conditions, the Tribunal may not take into account an incidental deviation clause on the grounds that it makes no sense, as it does not make sense in Nicolene Ltd/Simmonds. However, this rule cannot apply to a significant term as seen in Kingsley- Keith, Ltd. v. Glynn Brothers (Chemicals), Ltd.[13] or subject to a war or force majeure clause or an option on agreed terms. A contract would not be vague if it put in place mechanisms to determine its duration. In Damodhar Tukaram Mangalmurtiand /Staat Bombay [9], 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 [10], 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. With respect to daulat Ram Rala Ram vs. State Of Punjab [16], a clause in the arbitration agreement that forwards the dispute to the senior engineer is not vague, simply because the reference to the official who holds the office at the moment is vague. The use of the term does not make a contract vague, as it means rounding, in case of money, few books to a round number (Edwards v Skyways [17]). The words other necessary and indispensable expenses were also not paid in addition to the purchase price of the deviation and the execution costs. A contract is not uncertain simply because the time for completion or the conditions of delivery, the maximum amount of goods to buy are not specified. A binding contract may be applicable, even if certain conditions have not been agreed accurately when the nature of the terms can be implicitly established. The courts lay trade agreements fairly and comprehensively and involve conditions to the extent necessary to give the transaction the efficiency of the transaction. 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.