Hi, I'm doing an assignment about contracts, mostly introductory stuff about formation of a contract. I was a bit confused about something. In the scenario we got, I noticed the clause allowing for adjustment of contract price said 'to account for unexpected financial contingencies', in which the wording seemed pretty ambiguous and subjective to the appelant's situation. (there is a clause for the case of disputes where the amount is decided by an authorised third party. ) I remember in the Council of upper hunter country district v Australian Chilling and Freezing it was said that had the wording of this type of term been ambiguous, the secondary clause which deals with uncertainties in disputes wouldn't save the term from being illusory (in that case it wasn't because "supplier costs" was sufficient enough a criterion"). Would I be right in saying that the wording in this case "unexpected financial contingencies" doesnt offer enough of a criterion and despite the secondary clause dealing with uncertainties it is nonetheless illusory because the ambiguity of the statement gives the building company discretion as per The council v chilling and freezing case? Or does the arbitration clause in case of disputes take care of this?
Similar threads
