Agreement Is Not Void For Uncertainty

In the Daulat Ram Rala Ram vs State of Punjab file [16], a clause in the arbitration agreement referring the dispute to the chief engineer is not vague simply because it is the official who currently holds the position. The use of the term “approximate” does not make a contract vague, because in the case of money, it means rounding a few pounds to a round number (Edwards v Skyways [17]). Nor should the terms be paid, in addition to the purchase price of the return and the costs of execution, for other necessary and indispensable expenses. A contract is not only uncertain because the time for the service or the terms of delivery, the maximum quantity of goods to be purchased are not indicated. However, in Hall v Busst [11], the Majority of the High Court of Australia held that the words “reasonable amounts” to cover depreciation were uncertain and therefore unenforceable. In Milnes vs. Gery [12], a sales agreement for a fair valuation was also considered uncertain. (a) A agrees to sell B “one hundred tonnes of oil”. There is nothing that can show what kind of oil was planned.

The agreement is null and void for reasons of uncertainty. In Ashburn Anstalt vs. Arnold [6], an agreement to rent a store in a better location was not uncertain, as it could be established by expert evidence, given that the term is often used in the real estate transactions concerned. In the case of an agreement for the sale of immovable property, if the property cannot be identified with certainty and there is no consensus between the parties on the price to be paid, there could be no contract concluded between the potential buyers of the dwelling and the developers. ABP asked the High Court to make findings and argued that Term 22 was set aside for reasons of uncertainty. Tata has requested a mandatory stay of this proceeding, pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which requires the Tribunal to stay the proceedings “unless it is satisfied that the arbitration agreement is void and unassyed, ineffective or unenforceable”. The High Court (Walker J) rejected the two implicit conditions and decided in favour of STX that the option contract was cancelled for reasons of uncertainty.. . . .