A contract that must be binding may be enforceable even if certain conditions have not been precisely agreed, if the nature of the conditions can be determined implicitly. Courts interpret trade agreements fairly and broadly and impose conditions to the extent necessary to give commercial efficiency to the transaction. This article was written by Diva Rai, a student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida. In this article, she discusses agreements that are void due to the uncertainty of section 29 of the Indian Contracts Act. As stated in Bahadur Singh vs Fuleshwar Singh , a contract is not invalid if its terms can be certain. The importance of the treaty should not be uncertain and it must also be demonstrated that it cannot be made safe. Mere indeterminacy or uncertainty, which can be easily eliminated by correct interpretation, does not invalidate a contract. Even oral chords are not considered vague if their conditions are well defined. == Varadaraja Reddiar vs Francis Xavier Joseph Periaria  has been established that if both parties knew fully the identity of the land to be transferred under the agreement, the agreement would not be uncertain solely because the exact boundaries, survey number or location would not be mentioned in the agreement if the identity of the property could reasonably be established there.
In Mithu Khan vs Pipariya wali  was a land sale agreement with the name of the country, but without its survey number or are not invalid due to uncertainty. Business documents are sometimes expressed in a language that does not have a clear meaning. This was seen at Dhanrajamal Gobindram vs Shamji Kalidas And Co. . The cases of commercial contracts are different, as there are standards of commercial use and use that can be met in determining the conditions that are fair and proportionate. Words that do not have a grammatical meaning can be used in the commercial sense of the term and constructed accordingly. The mere fact that it is difficult to interpret a trade agreement is not fatal, nor is difficulty synonymous with ambiguity as long as a certain meaning can be extracted. A contract is not necessarily ineffective because it is open to more than one meaning if the intended importance can be established.
(d) A agrees to sell « all the grain in my grain store in Ramnagar » to B. There is no uncertainty that invalidates the agreement. If only one party or clause of an agreement seems uncertain, but the other terms of the contract are able to communicate the meaning of the contract, these agreements are considered enforceable and binding on the parties. While it is possible to identify the conditions and eliminate ambiguity through the application of different interpretative rules by the courts, contracts are considered valid and binding in such cases. Therefore, if the terms of the contract can be certain, the contract will apply as stated in Bahadur Singh v. Fuleshwar Singh. It should be noted that in Bushwall Properties Ltd. . . .