b) A agrees to sell B 100 tonnes of oil of a given denomination called a commercial item. There is no uncertainty that the agreement will not be cancelled. With respect to daulat Ram Rala Ram vs. State Of Punjab [16], a clause in the arbitration agreement that forwards the dispute to the senior engineer is not vague, simply because the reference to the official who holds the office at the moment is vague. The use of the term does not make a contract vague, as it means rounding, in case of money, few books to a round number (Edwards v Skyways [17]). The words other necessary and indispensable expenses were also not paid in addition to the purchase price of the deviation and the execution costs. A contract is not uncertain simply because the time for completion or the conditions of delivery, the maximum amount of goods to buy are not specified. In the case of a real estate sale agreement, if the property cannot be identified with security and there is no consensus between the parties on the price to be paid, there could be no contract between potential home buyers and builders. However, when two clients withdrew in the past three years, the company attempted to recover commissions, but the consultant argued that the refund clause of the agreement was invalidated by uncertainties because it had not clearly defined how to calculate the amount to be repaid. As stated in Bahadur Singh vs.

Fuleshwar Singh [2], a contract is not void if its terms can be made safe. The importance of the treaty must not be uncertain and it must also be shown that it cannot be sure. The mere inaccuracy or uncertainty, which can be easily eliminated by correct interpretation, does not invalidate a contract. Even oral chords are not considered vague if their conditions can be determined accurately. “The existence of a compromise clause can help the courts maintain or be executed safely, probably in reference to a commercial and contractual mechanism that can be implemented with the assistance of experts in this area, with which the parties can, in the absence of an agreement, resolve their dispute.” Section 29 contains the importance of an agreement which, at first glance, should be clear, as demonstrated in Kovuru Kalappa Devara vs. Kumar Krishna Mitter [1], but the effect can be granted to the contract if its meaning is found with reasonable clarity. If that were not possible, the treaty would not be applicable. Only difficulties of interpretation are not considered vague.

The principle can be formulated as a party that wants to grant a judicial remedy for breach, the obligation must be able to identify the obligation with sufficient precision to justify the appeal. The law thus established is more flexible and recognizes that remedies may require different safeguards. The parties entered into a sale in 1930, but broke down the following year.