The use of the word “option,” that is, a right contrary to the obligation to provide, did not help the applicant, who was still too uncertain to apply. The Court of Appeal also found that the word “reasonable” had been used to dictate how the parties should reach an agreement and not to compel them to a reasonable period of time. In addition, the factors identified by the applicant to assist the Tribunal in assessing the period were all economic factors that the parties, not the Tribunal, had to consider in their hearings. Therefore, even if the deadline had required the parties to agree on an appropriate extension, this would not have been applicable in the absence of an objective reference criterion in the GSO (or in the completion of the initial period) until the extension period would be set. “This decision shows that the Singapore courts will not implement the clear intention of the parties to communicate at all costs,” said Rakesh Nelson of Pinsent Masons. “The Singapore Court of Appeal stressed that if the proper implementation of an arbitration agreement is that the arbitration agreement is not applicable, then the parties should live with the consequences of their decision.” 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. After appealing to the competent judicial authorities (all of whom agreed with the English courts and the parties, there was a precise summary of the law, see Article ), the court concluded that, on the basis of this long legal history with Great Britain, Singapore`s contractual law follows that of common law countries such as England and the United States. In these countries, a contract is an agreement made by an “offer” and “acceptance” between two or more “competent” parties who exchange “counterparties” to create a legal obligation between them. The Singapore Law Committee, a group formed and supported by the Singapore Academy of Law and the Singapore Ministry of Justice, outlined the basics of Singapore contract law. His analysis is summarized below. The English High Court and the Court of Appeal disagreed and found that the matrix of facts was such that it was clear that the parties intended the contract to have legal value. This is all the more true since the contract is one of three similar contracts entered into as part of a transaction agreement between the two parties.
Had the case been before them, the English courts would have included in the contract the conditions necessary to save him. It is essential that the Tribunal erred in (a) in not dealing with the “critical issue,” which the parties intended to do if they could not agree on the timetable or if the charges were not met, and b) “must not consider whether the parties provided a booth of machines to resolve any uncertainty” (see recital ).