Contracts are the cornerstone of many agreements. When you think about contracts, you remember that one party agrees to do something and the other party that acts in return. That means I`m giving you an apple and you`re paying for it. But often in contracts, the parties simply agree to do things, or they promise to do certain acts. In most trade agreements, two or more parties generally commit to certain obligations. Such commitments could be linked to reciprocal promises, i.e. promises that are part of or all of each other`s counterpart.1 In other words, compliance with one party`s commitment depends on the other party`s compliance with its explicit or tacit commitment. The principles of mutual promise often matter in state contracts (energy, infrastructure, etc.) when the public body has certain critical obligations that may or may not be explicitly covered by the agreements. Even if they are registered, the order and order are not clear, leading to a lengthy and costly dispute resolution process. If people promise each other, first, to do certain things that are legal and, second, to do certain other things that are illegal in certain circumstances, the first promise is a treaty, but the second is a non-agreement.
If the contract requires an order in which the promised actions must be performed, the acts must be performed in that order. Otherwise, the order of order is determined by the type of promises. 2.3 At the same time, it is once again a common form of mutual promise, in which the parties must fulfil their obligations explicitly or tacitly at the same time. The party that is prepared to honour its promise will be exempted if the other party is not “ready” and “willing” to fulfill its respective obligations. In J.P. Builders vs. Ramadas Rao,5 the Hon`ble Supreme Court held that “preparation” refers to financial capacity and “preparation” refers to the behaviour of the aggrieved party who wishes the benefit, and in general the former is supported by the latter. To understand this, let`s go back to the original illustration. If “A” were to require sellers, in a tendering process, to source certain raw materials for “B,” all of which, including those from “B,” while “A” was not “ready” and “willing” to make bids in a timely manner, “B” could be freed from the performance of its commitment. The simultaneous fulfillment of the reciprocal promises of “A” and “B” is an integral part of the overall performance of the contract in this figure. In M/s Shanti Builders vs. CIBA Industrial Workers Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.4, there was a dispute over some of the construction work that was to be done by Shanti Builders.
CIBA stated that Shanti Builders had not completed the work in accordance with the contract, which resulted in significant losses. On the other hand, Shanti Builders stated that no land had been granted to it as a contractual payment for the construction work already completed and that it was not in a position to complete the next phase of the work until this payment had not been made.