Publication Date



Cases continue to emanate from the courts that appear to show some ignorance of the requirement to evidence intention in subject to contract agreements. Conversely the cases could evidence a deliberate strategy to leave open the possibility of escaping what was thought, at least by one party, to be a concluded agreement. Often this state of affairs arises as a result of a settlement reached at or after protracted mediation. The cases disclose an apparent lack of clarity by parties, lawyers and mediators as to the status of the parties’ intentions to be bound by an agreement that is subject to the execution of a formal contract. This article will discuss some of the more recent cases that highlight this element of confusion and reinforce the need to clearly state which class of subject to contract agreement the parties have landed in at the conclusion of negotiations.

Document Type

Journal Article

Access Rights

ERA Access

Access may be restricted.