Such agreements must be reduced to writing and recording. Contracts ensure that your interests are protected by law and that both parties meet their obligations as promised. If a party breaks the contract, the parties will have certain solutions (so-called “corrective measures”). The conditions may be implied because of the actual circumstances or the behaviour of the parties. In the case of BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd/Shire of Hastings, the Privy British Council proposed a five-step test to determine the situations in which the facts of a case may be subject to conditions. The traditional tests were the “enterprise efficiency test” and the “bystander officious test.” As part of the business test test, first proposed in The Moorcock , the minimum requirements required to give the contract the company`s effectiveness are implicit. In the context of the officious bystander test (named at Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw , but in fact from Reigate v. Union Manufacturing Co (Ramsbottom) Ltd , a term can only be implied if an “abominable spectator” who is part of the contract negotiations suggests that the parties would immediately agree. The difference between these tests is questionable.
A term can be either explicit or implied.  An explicit term is indicated by the parties during the hearing or written in a contractual document. The implied terms are not specified, but they are nevertheless a provision of the contract. This type of person is generally not in a position to enter into contracts: a contractual clause is “a clause that is part of a contract.”  Any clause gives rise to a contractual obligation, the violation of which may give rise to litigation. Not all conditions are explicitly specified and certain conditions have less legal weight, as they are marginal in the treaty`s objectives.  Compensatory damages compensate the applicant for the losses actually incurred as accurately as possible. This can be “waiting damage,” “loss of confidence” or “restitution damage.” The damage caused by expectations is awarded in order to put the party in a position as good as what the party would have been able to obtain when executing the contract as promised.  Damage to reliance is generally granted where it is not possible to obtain a reasonably reliable estimate of the applicant`s loss of anticipation or option. Reliance losses cover costs incurred on the promise. The Australian McRae/Commonwealth Disposals Commission, which involved a contract for the rights to recover a vessel, is an example of awarding damages for overly speculative profits. At Anglia Television Ltd v. Reed, the Court of Appeal of England awarded the applicant expenses incurred prior to the contract to prepare the benefit.
There are two types of misrepresentations: fraud in fact and fraud in incitement. The fraud in the Factum focuses on whether the party accusing the misrepresentation knew that it had established a contract. If the party did not know that it was entering into a contract, there is no meeting of minds, and the contract is void. The fraud in the incentive focuses on the misrepresentation tries to get the party to conclude the contract. False presentation of a material fact (if the party had known the truth, that party would not have entered into the contract) renders a contract cancelled.