The recent decision of the Court of Appeal on the safety of conditions is MRI Trading AG against Erdenet Mining Corporation LLC  EWCA Civ 156. EMC, a Mongolian mining company, and MRI, a Swiss trading company, have entered into arbitration over the supply of copper concentrate. They entered into the agreement of three copper supply contracts. The first two supply agreements covered 2009 and were executed. The third, which dealt with deliveries in 2010, resulted in another dispute. The MRI claimed damages for non-delivery and sought more than $10 million. EMC`s defence was that the relevant provisions of the 2010 contract, on which the MRI balked at the MRI assertion, were mere agreements. The conditions were as follows: the Court of Appeal disagreed and upheld the agreement. The use of the word „operation“ shows that the airline has agreed, in terms of construction, to fly the aircraft commercially – thus providing a passenger service. The contract, which was read as a whole, also showed that the aircraft had to take off and land at the airport on each operating day.
If it could not do so for technical reasons, it would not cause the airline to break up. In addition, the frequency of flights or the destination of flights was the responsibility of the company. This case is another example of the Court of Appeal disagreeing with the judge and finds that the contract was ultimately enforceable. 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 . The application of this rule is illustrated by Sudbrook Trading Estate Ltd/Eggleton  AC 444. In this case, the contract provided an option for the acquisition of leases at a reasonable price agreed upon by two appraisers, one designated by buyers or sellers. The sellers refused to name their expert, so the contract machine collapsed.
The Court of Appeal found that this was simply an agreement that could be reached. The House of Lords disagreed. Its masters were rejected by an earlier authority which purported to prevent the courts from substituting for the valuation method agreed upon by the parties, that is, the agreement as a binding option for the purchase of leases at a fair and equitable price. This award was something that the court could decide if the contract procedure was deadlocked. As we shall see, the courts ultimately applied English law, so that in the second half of the 20th century English law had looked openly at maintenance contracts. They slowly come to the conclusion that the agreements between the trade parties, which appear to be linked and were prepared to bear the costs of conducting their negotiations, are too uncertain to be enforceable.