THE SELLERS' RATIONALE FOR DEMANDING THE LOI. This position expressed by one representative of a seller, a Swedish_based broker, in a recent exchange with this writer's office regarding the seller's offer wherein the prospective buyer's mandate resisted the broker's insistence that the prospective buyer must first sign an LOI, pretty much sums up the traditional rationale offered by sellers and/or their agents for having an LOI: "Buyer who is serious, ready and able to purchase [crude oil], will sign [an] LOI and all the necessary documents that protect the rights of the Brokers and proceed. There is nothing to lose in signing those documents. This is how it is usually done and this is how it should be."
The Court in its decision reiterated that in terms of letters of intent, it will not impose binding contracts where none existed and therefore each case will depend on its own facts, taking into consideration what is communicated between the parties by words or conduct. Where contracts are negotiated "subject to contract", the Court noted that, it will not always infer that a contract has been agreed on those business terms that are "subject to contract". However, in this case, the Court decided that the parties had agreed a binding contract and that the binding contract was not subject to contract for the following reasons: Given the parties agreement over price, it was unrealistic to infer that the parties did not intend to create legal relations; All the essential terms had been agreed and variations were agreed without stating that they were "subject to contract". The actions and communications of the parties indicated that they had accepted the contract terms and formed a legal contract, without the necessity to require a formal written contract; and