Until then, so simple. It should be borne in mind, however, that the use of the term „counter-contract“ is not conclusive, but that it presupposes that the parties do not intend to create legal relationships (i.e. to conclude a binding contract) and that the conduct of the parties may result in the loss of the protection afforded by the „object of the contract“. For example, in the case of RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v. Alois Müller Dairy1, Müller had sent a letter of intent to RTS, together with a draft contract containing a clause limiting RTS`s liability in the event of a dispute. The draft contract also contained a clause stipulating that the contract is not binding unless it is signed and performed by the parties, i.e. it is contrary to the treaty. The contract was never signed, but RTS fulfilled its delivery obligations with Müller`s agreement. Terms indicating that the agreement is „contrary to the contract“ or „subject to the performance of the contract“ would generally mean that there is no binding contract in its final form before the performance of an agreement.
In the event of a breach of contract, the party who was the subject of the infringement is entitled to financial compensation to compensate for the loss, whether in terms of money, time or other consideration. The phrase „counter-contract“ is often at the top of documents and emails, but what does that mean? In order to avoid any subsequent disputes, you should be careful when compiling so-called „contrasting“ matches and ask yourself if the above points are accurate….