The applicant initiated proceedings and argued that he was entitled to “an additional period of time during which additional remuneration under the GSA was payable.” The applicant pointed out that the wording used in the GSO (i.e. “having the opportunity”) was binding. The defendant argued that it was not required to grant an extension to the applicant, since the provision is a non-applicable agreement and an agreement must be reached. The defendant also argued that, although it was not required to react reasonably to the extension proposed by the applicant, it had in any case acted reasonably in rejecting it. Mr. Morris also supported the principle that the duty to bargain in good faith was “repugnant” in the negotiations.11 The duty of good faith, if imposed on trade negotiations, would conflict with the principle of contractual freedom, which allows the parties to withdraw from negotiations at any time or threaten to withdraw from negotiations without their actions being supervised by the courts. There is no concept of “one size fits all” that the courts can invoke, as they will make their decision on enforceable force on the basis of their interpretation of the agreement as a whole. However, if a clause gives the parties the opportunity to accept or object at a later date, whether reasonable or not, the parties should consider that the courts will apply such a clause only slowly. A contract negotiation agreement is not an “agreement of agreement” neither in its form nor in its content. If, despite their best efforts, the parties fail to reach a final agreement on the conditions at issue, the negotiating treaty will be considered respected and the parties will be released from their obligations. The non-agreement is not a violation of the negotiating treaty. A party is only liable if the absence of a final agreement is due to a good faith violation of that party`s obligation to negotiate or negotiate.
In the case of Baldwin – Anor/Icon Energy Ltd – Anor  QSC 12, the Queensland Supreme Court usefully considered the applicability of a bargaining agreement. The Court of Justice went beyond previous jurisprudence and found that the agreement was a legally enforceable contract, despite the absence of prices, specifications and delivery dates to be determined. In addition, oral assurances to the customer that he was the first to queue for the vehicle replaced part of the original agreement and created a secondary contract that the dealer had breached when he finally delivered the vehicle to another customer. 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. (ii) Potentially enforceable commitments/rights resulting from the parties reaching an agreement on contractual terms (some elements still to be resolved in the future on the basis of objective criteria or a determined mechanism that can be tried by the courts on the basis of the parties` agreement) Unlike the first applicant, the defendants asserted that the agency contract did not contain such an unspoken clause to negotiate entry to the GSA with the second applicant.