Agreeing on agreements An “agreement” is not a contract. This type of agreement is often used in sectors that need long-term contracts to ensure a constant source of delivery and production sales. Mutual declarations of approval, which are in themselves sufficient to constitute a binding contract, are not deprived of their effectiveness by the mere fact that the parties declare their readiness to prepare a written reading of their agreement. In determining whether there is only a “deal agreement” or a sufficiently binding contract on the basis of a particular fact, the courts apply certain rules. If the parties express their intention – either to be bound or not to be bound until a written document is drawn up – that intention is derent. If they have not expressed their intention, but exchange the promises of a given service and agree on all the essential conditions, the parties have concluded a contract although the written document is never signed. If the declarations of will are incomplete, such as for example. B if an essential term such as the quantity of new negotiations has been left to negotiation, the parties do not have a treaty. The designation of the essential time limit for the continuation of negotiations shall be interpreted in such a way as to demonstrate the intention of the parties not to be bound until a full agreement has been reached. If a debtor jointly and severally liable for a contract fulfils or pays the promise in full, the other promisors will thus be released from their obligations towards the promising, since he can only recover the amount due to him.
However, the promisor who provided the benefit is entitled to contributions from the co-promisors – that is, the right to obtain from the other co-promisors their proportionate share of the debt. In principle, a co-beneficiary who exceeds his proportional share is eligible for the contribution, unless there is a special agreement. A contract is not implied if it would cause injustice or harm.. . .