In contrast, in the present case, it cannot be said that the parties clearly stated that there would be an equalization, but rather they stated that the payment of “any” equalization would not be determined until the future date. The courts have consistently maintained that they should not supply essential terms necessary to convert an “agreement to agree” into a concluded contract, even if such an implied agreement may be considered to be very fair and one calculated to do justice between the parties, if it was not the agreement the parties reached or intended. See Kelly v. Watson 1921 CanLII 23 (SCC), [1921] 1 WWR 958 (SCC).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.