Every unresolved contractual term is a future decision that somebody will still have to make, often under worse conditions.
Leaders sometimes accept ambiguity because it helps a deal move forward.
A difficult issue is deferred. A price mechanism will be agreed later. A scope description is deliberately broad. The parties write that they will “negotiate in good faith” or settle details after mobilisation.
This can feel pragmatic.
Sometimes it is.
But the supplied Week 2 material shows why certainty matters. It discusses vague or uncertain terms, meaningless clauses, agreements to agree, terms to be set through defined mechanisms and cases in which courts tried to determine whether an agreement was sufficiently certain to enforce.
The strategic insight is broader than contract law:
Ambiguity does not eliminate a decision. It postpones it.
And postponed decisions are often made after dependency, cost and pressure have increased.
The Strategic Context
The source explains that courts seek objective meaning where possible but may refuse to enforce terms that are too uncertain.
It uses examples including:
- Whitlock v Brew;
- Hillas & Co v Arcos;
- Fitzgerald v Masters;
- Coal Cliff Collieries Pty Ltd v Sijehama Pty Ltd;
- Booker Industries Pty Ltd v Wilson Parking (Qld) Pty Ltd.
These teaching examples distinguish situations where uncertainty can sometimes be resolved from those where the agreement remains incomplete.
For leaders, the critical issue is not predicting exactly how a court would interpret every clause.
It is reducing the number of material commercial decisions that are left undefined.
What Leaders Commonly Misread
“We can agree the detail later”
That is not always a neutral choice.
By the time “later” arrives, one party may have more leverage.
“Everybody understands what we mean”
Shared intent can disappear when staff change, projects slip or incentives diverge.
“The court will fill the gap”
The source shows that courts may sometimes find meaning, imply reasonableness or sever problematic wording, but leaders should not design contracts around judicial rescue.
“A vague term gives us flexibility”
It may instead give the other party an argument.
“The contract is complete because the commercial headline is agreed”
Price and scope are important, but performance mechanisms, change, acceptance, responsibility and exit may be equally consequential.
Reframing the Issue
Certainty is a form of decision ownership.
When parties define a term clearly, they make the decision while they still have control.
When they leave the term unresolved, they transfer that decision to:
- future negotiation;
- project managers;
- contract administrators;
- executives under pressure;
- technical experts;
- arbitrators;
- tribunals;
- courts.
The strategic question is therefore:
Which future decisions are we intentionally delegating, and to whom?
That framing allows some uncertainty where it is useful while preventing accidental ambiguity.
Strategic Analysis: Where Uncertainty Becomes Expensive
Scope
Poor scope definition causes variation, rework and claims.
Price
An unclear price-adjustment mechanism can create conflict when costs move.
Acceptance
If acceptance criteria are vague, supplier and customer may disagree about completion.
Change
If the process for changing scope is unclear, informal directions can become disputed claims.
Future negotiation
The source distinguishes an “agreement to agree” from a contract in which a defined mechanism exists for settling a future term.
That distinction is strategically important.
If future uncertainty is unavoidable, define how it will be resolved.
For example:
- independent valuation;
- indexation;
- benchmark formula;
- specified approval process;
- expert determination.
The legal validity of any mechanism must be reviewed in context.
Decision Framework
For every material unresolved term, classify it.
Defined now
The term is known and can be agreed.
Variable but measurable
The future value is unknown, but the mechanism can be agreed.
Subject to decision
A named authority or process will determine it.
Intentionally flexible
The parties deliberately preserve discretion.
Unresolved
No clear mechanism exists.
The last category should trigger scrutiny.
Ask:
- Why is the term unresolved?
- What event will force a decision?
- Who will have leverage at that time?
- What happens if the parties cannot agree?
- Can a mechanism be designed now?
From Strategy to Execution
Immediate action
Review active contracts for phrases such as:
- “to be agreed”;
- “reasonable”;
- “as required”;
- “from time to time”;
- “subject to later approval”.
Not all are defective. They are simply places where decision rights should be understood.
Medium-term capability building
Build contract review around decision completeness rather than only clause presence.
A contract can contain all standard headings and still leave the important commercial choices unresolved.
Long-term strategic positioning
Use claim and dispute data to identify recurring ambiguity.
If the same clause repeatedly generates conflict, improve the template rather than treating each dispute as isolated.
Related article: Battle of Forms: Whose Terms Actually Govern the Transaction?
Related article: Counteroffers, Revocation and 'Subject to Contract': How Negotiations Change the Deal
Signals to Monitor
- repeated use of “TBA” or “to be agreed” in final contracts;
- mobilisation before acceptance criteria are settled;
- price mechanisms dependent on future negotiation;
- different interpretations of “reasonable” performance;
- contract administrators deciding issues that should have been resolved at negotiation;
- disputes caused by staff turnover and lost context;
- courts or external experts being asked to determine business terms.
Questions for the Leadership Team
- Which material contract terms remain unresolved across our active portfolio?
- Are they intentionally flexible or simply unfinished?
- What mechanism applies if the parties cannot agree later?
- Which future terms could become more expensive once dependency increases?
- What recurring disputes reveal weaknesses in our standard wording?
- Are we transferring decisions to future project teams that should be made by leaders now?
Closing Perspective
Ambiguity can create room for cooperation, but unmanaged ambiguity creates delayed conflict.
A contract should not attempt to predict every future event.
It should, however, make clear who decides, by what mechanism and with what evidence when uncertainty becomes real.
That is the difference between flexibility and unfinished governance.
About EraNorth Insights
EraNorth Insights publishes practical analysis on strategy, projects, operations, transformation and decision intelligence for professional and organisational use. About EraNorth.