To reach a binding agreement, the partner must be able to do so. In other words, the person must be: the analogy of a deck of cards can be used – the parties to the negotiations can get carried away, dodged or concealed in the negotiation of the result they obtained. However, there is a point where freedom of negotiation goes beyond acceptable business behaviour and becomes conduct that leads to legal responsibility. Australian Consumer Law (ACL) provides an important standard for acceptable business behaviour because it imposes “misleading or misleading” behaviour and contains specific misrepresentations that may give rise to legal action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) or a person who suffers a loss as a result of “misleading or misleading” behaviour or misrepresentation. The case law reflects the tension between, on the one hand, the desire to have parties to the principle of the pacta sunt servanda and, on the other hand, the reluctance of the courts to make a boon to the parties. Although there have been differences within the Australian justice system as to the tribunal`s role in the performance of a contract, courts generally prioritize the need for agenthek [particularly agreements  and trade agreements.  For the formation of the contract, the agreement must be sufficiently secure and comprehensive to enable the identification and application of the rights and obligations of the parties.   The issue of security includes three related and often overlapping problems: Agreements for the conclusion of a future agreement are not binding. In the United Kingdom, the House of Lords has decided that negotiation agreements are not applicable either. However, in Australia, the Court suggested to Coal Cliff Colliaries that bargaining agreements could be applicable in appropriate circumstances. It is clear that lockout agreements – that is, agreements that are not negotiated with a third party for a specified period – are sufficiently secure and are not cancelled for reasons of uncertainty. While some statements made prior to the conclusion of the contract may have been considered conditional, not all of these statements will serve as a condition. Whether a statement made during the negotiations is an enforceable clause depends on whether or not the contract contains full written or oral agreement.
When a contract is fully written, no statement can be made outside the contractual document.  This is called the Parol evidento rule. This sometimes becomes even more evident with the inclusion of a full clause in the contract that specifies that no other statement or extrinsic material can influence the terms.  In the absence of a full agreement or merger clause, the intention of the parties is to take into account the fact that the entire agreement is included in the written contract. The flexible approach allows for extrinsic evidence to determine whether the agreement is fully written. In other words, the apparent appearance of the treaty as a full contract is merely evidence that the document was entirely written.  The existence of a written document suggests that all the terms are contained in this document, but the courts have recently agreed to rebut this presumption.  If the extrinsic evidence was a title of claim  and objectively considered to be aimless to complete the written document and be part of the contract, the existence of the evidence may support the view that the document was not fully written and could therefore be included in the contract.  Such a contract would be considered to be partially written and partly oral.  In the case of a contract that is the subject of a full oral agreement, a statement is an explicit clause, if it is the subject of such a statement.
 The fourth element is that the parties must create the intention to create legal relationships.