Contractual security is a principle of national and international law that requires that contracting parties must always ensure that a contract is secure. If a contract is incomplete or uncertain, it may not be applicable. An agreement does not create a binding contract. In addition, it was repeated that, if in doubt, it was preferable to give reasonable weight to an inappropriate preferred case. Cypriot courts that apply the principles of English common law are generally reluctant to make an agreement applicable in the event of a lack of security. Thus, in the case of Ismini Charalambous v. Agamemnon Hadjigeorghiou ((1984) JSC 422, the Supreme Court stated that the parties negotiating the terms of the contract should apply security during the development of their contract. It is important to hire experienced professionals who help to explicitly define the essential conditions of a contract. For conditions that cannot be agreed upon at the time of the contract, a flexible approach can be adopted by: Leonidas Kyriakides/Antonis Kyriakides (1976 1 CLR 76) with regard to the interpretation of the term “lime industry” in an agreement, the court found that, more specifically, if the essential conditions of an agreement are determined by a reading of the treaty as a whole, the approval of the parties (Saab and Another Sacred Convent of Ayios Neophytos, (1982) 1 CLR 499) will be effective. If the substance of a clause is clear, the Tribunal is prepared to interpret and enforce it, and interpretation and applicability are particularly difficult (Polyviou, Contract Law, Part B, p.
533). However, if the parties have agreed, a court will consider the agreement to be slow because its importance is uncertain. Indeed, the courts recognize that commercial documents are not always written rigorously. Although the agreement forms the basis of all contracts, not all agreements are applicable. A preliminary question is whether the contract is reasonably secure in its essential terms, such as the price, purpose and identity of the parties. In general, the courts are trying to “make the agreement work”, as in Hillas-Co Ltd/Arcos Ltd the House of Lords found that a “fair specification” conifer timber purchase option was safe enough to be applied if read under previous agreements between the parties. However, the courts do not want to “enter into contracts for persons” and, as a result, scammell and Nephew Ltd/Ouston, a clause stating that the price of the purchase of a new van was “for rent” for two years was found to be unenforceable because there was no objective standard for the court to know what the price was or what reasonable price.  Similarly, in Baird Textile Holdings Ltd/M-S plc, the Court of Appeal held that, since the price and quantity of the purchase were partly uncertain, there could be no delay in M-S being able to properly notify its contract of sale.
What is controversial is that the House of Lords has broadened this idea by entering into a good faith agreement to negotiate a future treaty, which is not secure enough to be applicable.  If the contractual terms are uncertain or incomplete, the parties do not reach an agreement in the eyes of the law.  An agreement is not a contract and the inability to agree on key issues that may include elements such as price or safety may lead to the failure of the entire contract.