The Tribunal noted the distinction between an agreement that uses the best efforts to achieve a given outcome and an agreement to leverage the best efforts to reach agreement on an essential clause of a contract. He found that the option agreement fell into the latter category. He also briefly referred to the nature of an „essential issue.“ In the case of the MRI business, a matching plan had been agreed between the parties; the Court of Appeal upheld an unspoken clause that the shipping plan was appropriate. The Commercial Court considered that a shipping plan was a „routine matter“ and that shipping plans had been agreed in the MRI trade in each of the previous two years (i.e., easy to evaluate). Furthermore, in this case, delivery dates are essential and are not easy to assess, as no criteria have been defined and there are many relevant considerations for agreeing to a delivery date. In Teekay Tankers v STX Offshore – Shipbuilding  EWHC 253 (Comm), the High Court considered the cancellation of an option agreement on the construction of tankers for reasons of uncertainty. In any event, the courts decide on their own facts. However, they are hesitant to consider as null and void a clause that should „be legally valid“, particularly if one of the parties has benefited from the partial benefit or has brought it back into contract.5 A clause is therefore not applicable simply because it requires additional agreement from the parties, if the courts are able to resolve the uncertainty. B, for example: Morris confirmed the principle that general standards dictated by the manner in which parties should strive to agree on conditions. , as the use of „best efforts“ or „reasonable efforts,“ will not enter into an enforceable agreement.12 This is an important statement by the court`s current management in this regard and is a timely reminder that each case will turn to its particular circumstances, particularly with respect to the court previously ruled that an explicit obligation in a contract to use all reasonable efforts 13 The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled on a similar fact case and found that the „consent agreement“ was not applicable in that case. The court ruled that a „binding agreement for the parties“ must contain all the essential conditions contained in the final agreement signed. If there is no essential term, for example. B the actual buyback process, or other essential issues are dealt with, but remain unresolved, the agreement is not applicable.