Many agreements can be certain, but it is by no means certain that citizens in the social and internal sector want their agreements to be legally binding. In Balfour/Balfour, Atkin LJ stated that Mr. Balfour`s agreement to pay $30 a month to his wife while working in Ceylon should be considered unenforceable, since people generally do not intend to draw the legal consequences. Similarly, an agreement between friends in a bar or a girl and her mother will fall into this sphere, but not a couple who is about to separate and not friends who make large transactions, especially when one is heavily dependent on the other`s assurances to his detriment.  This presumption of impracticality can always be rebutted by explicit consent, for example. B by the amortization of the agreement. On the other hand, it is considered almost conclusively that agreements between companies are enforceable.  But again, express words like “This provision… does not fall within the judicial jurisdiction of the courts.”  In one case, the law assumes that collective agreements between a union and an employer are not intended to establish legal relationships, allegedly to avoid excessive disputes under British labour law.
 While when a contract is silent, a court must essentially make an informed decision as to the existence of a right of termination when a contract looks at the case, the general approach of the courts is to follow the wishes of the parties. The authors of the former Goods Sale Act 1893 have distinguished the terms “conditions” (important concepts that confer a right of termination in the event of an infringement) and “guarantees” (minor conditions that do not) and, under the present Goods Sale Act 1979, certain concepts, such as quality descriptions, are standard terms.  A third species is an “unnamed” term, which is typically a vague term, such as citrus sweaters “in good condition” or a vessel that must be “in a state of navigation”. Since such a notion could be violated both significantly (for example. B in submarines) and trivially (for example. B a lifejacket is missing), the court will decide whether the right to terminate is based on the actual seriousness of the consequences of the offence. At Hong Kong Fir, Lord Diplock felt that a crew too incompetent to operate the vessel properly did not seriously violate the “airworthiness” of the contract to allow termination, since the charterers would always have obtained a boat that was working and could have replaced the crew. When a contract determines that a particular obligation is a “condition,” the dominant approach of the courts is to treat it as such.
Nevertheless, concerned about the ability of a stronger party to specify the terms it finds most convenient as “conditions” to the detriment of the weaker, the courts retain the ability to interpret an agreement against proferentum. In L Schuler AG v. Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd, the majority of the House of Lords considered that Article 7 of the contract was “a condition of that agreement” that Mr. Wickman visit six major automobile companies “at least once a week” to try to sell disc machines, not a real condition in the technical sense of the term. So when it turned out that Mr. Wickman had been much less frequented, Schuler AG could not dismiss him. Article 11 stated that 60 days of warning were required before Schuler AG could terminate the contract, so that the entire contract, read together, means that Article 7 is subject to Article 11. The language of the treaty is not determinative. If the word “condition” is not used, but the contract describes a right of termination, for example.
B the contract can be managed by the authorities for “any breach of duty”, it in turn is construction and the courts may be reluctant to fulfill the clear meaning if they have “draconian consequences” for the weaker party.  On the other hand, in Bunge Corporation v Tradax SA, the House of Lords found that a vessel`s announcement of the soy load four days late, if the contract specified