Agreement In Nigerian Law
In Rivers State vs Akwa Ibom State &anor, the Supreme Court of Nigeria stated that the purpose of the provision of section 151 of the Nigeria Evidence Act, which has just been repealed, which is identical to section 169 of the current Nigerian Evidence Act, is to ensure that the parties to an agreement act honestly and in good faith. In the words of the Court: « Article 151 of the Evidence Act creates Estoppel. The Rule of Estoppel is based on justice and good conscience. The aim is to guarantee honesty and good faith and thus guarantee justice between the parties. Estoppel is usually explained in such a way that a person cannot even say one thing and another era. It is customary for parties to trade agreements to contain clauses obliging them to negotiate in good faith the settlement of disputes that arise between them during the performance of a contract before resorting to arbitration or litigation. The aim is to ensure that, in most cases where treaties continue, the parties make a good faith effort to reach an agreement without their dispute or difference having a significant impact on the continued performance of the contract. The agreement, which requires the parties to negotiate in good faith, is also referred to as an « agreement agreement. » In finding that the good faith agreement in Walford was not enforceable, the court argued that such a contract appeared to be permanent since it did not set the date for the conclusion of the agreement or hearing, nor a mechanism for a party to conclude negotiations. In such a scenario, the clause requiring the parties to negotiate in good faith was declared unenforceable due to contractual vagueness. « . Admittedly, a lock-out agreement in which a party has agreed, for consideration for consideration, to negotiate the sale of its immovable property with no one other than the other party may constitute an enforceable agreement, an agreement in good faith for an indefinite period is not applicable and a valid provision cannot be implemented in a lock-out agreement for an indefinite period. that, under such an agreement, the seller is not required to enter into a contract with the buyer and does not know when it has the right to terminate the negotiations and that the court cannot be expected to decide whether there is subjectively an appropriate ground for terminating the negotiations. As a result, the alleged ancillary agreement is not applicable and the appeal is therefore dismissed.
There are cases in trade agreements where a formal and binding agreement implemented by the parties contains certain clauses obliging the parties to negotiate in good faith the settlement of disputes or disputes that may arise between them during the performance of the contract before resorting to arbitration or litigation. Such a good faith clause was described as enforceable by the English court in WN Hillas & Co v Arcos, where Lord Wright stated that parties to a contract who weighed good consideration could engage in a duty of good faith. However, the English Court of Appeal rejected Lord Wright`s statement in Hillas vs Arcos that parties to a contract who provided good consideration could undertake to negotiate in good faith.