The claimant provided his services for four years and received approximately £4 million in earn-out consideration, calculated according to a formula agreed at the SPA. In addition, the claimant requested an “appropriate extension” for the provision of his services, which the defendant refused. In order to determine whether an agreement is an agreement and is therefore not applicable, the following must be sought: in the first proceedings, the High Court decided that the applicant had the right to provide enforceable advisory services during the first four-year period, but that he did not have that right for another period. The obligation for the parties to agree on the duration of an additional period was not applicable, as it was an agreement that did not contain a “mechanism” or “objective standard” for the Tribunal to “reach a conclusion” on the duration of the extension. Examples of such cases are as follows: in order to minimise this risk, where flexibility is necessary and it is not possible to set a significant transaction time limit at the time of conclusion of the contract, the parties should include provisions that operate late in the agreement between the parties. For example, if your agreement requires you to “negotiate a good faith sales agreement” in the future, it may be necessary to ensure that the contract is safe: there are several main seizures for anyone who wants to make sure that their agreement will be applicable in the future. . . .