Loading
Abr 8, 2021

Agreement In Nigerian Law

Parties to an agreement are required to meet all the conditions they have created in their agreement. As decided by the Nigerian Supreme Court in Abalogu/SPDC, when a party to an agreement attempts to evade a company in the agreement, Nigerian courts will invoke the Principle of The Estoppel of Chargers and determine that the party is prevented from acting in a manner contrary to the agreement. As was decided in Ogbebor vs. Utagba Rubber Estate – Anor, it is the duty of the court to interpret an agreement reached by the parties under enforceable conditions, but not to rewrite the agreement. As a result, Nigerian courts would impose a clause requiring the parties to negotiate in good faith the resolution of their dispute before resorting to litigation or arbitration proceedings. Given that the Tribunal considered in good faith that the agreement in good faith was inapplicable, the Tribunal explained that such a contract appeared to be of an indeterminate duration, since it did not set the date for the conclusion of the agreement or hearing, nor a mechanism by which a party could conclude the negotiations. In such a scenario, the clause requiring the parties to bargain in good faith was declared unenforceable due to contractual inaccuracy. «… Although a lockout agreement by which a party agreed, for a specified period of time, not to negotiate the sale of its property with anyone other than the other party, could constitute an enforceable agreement, an agreement that had to be negotiated in good faith for an unspecified period was not enforceable and a corresponding clause could not be implied in a lockout agreement for an unspecified period, since, after such a period, the seller was not required to negotiate in good faith and that a corresponding clause could not be implied in a lockout agreement for an undetermined period, since after such a period the seller was not required to negotiate in good faith and that a corresponding clause could not be implied in an unspecified term lockout agreement. since, after such a period, the seller was not required to negotiate in good faith and that a corresponding clause could not be implied in a lockout agreement for an undetermined period, since the seller was not required to negotiate after such a period, to negotiate in good faith, and a corresponding clause could not be implied in an unspecified lockout agreement for an unspecified period, since, after such a period, the seller was not required to negotiate in good faith and that a corresponding clause in a lockout agreement could not be implied for an undetermined period, since the agreement to enter into a contract with the purchaser and he would not know when he was entitled to withdraw from the negotiations and he could not be expected to have the Tribunal decide whether he existed , subjectively, an appropriate reason to end the negotiations.

It follows that the so-called security agreement was unenforceable and that the appeal would therefore be dismissed. Parties who wish to establish business relationships often want to write their first thoughts on such a relationship in the scenario. This can take the form of tentative agreements between them. The most common form of these interim agreements, which has become a darling of the economy, is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).